Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that, on Ratification by the Swiss Federal Council of the Supplementary Protocol set out in the Schedule to an Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Switzerland) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before your House, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.

I will comply with your request.— Elizabeth R.

I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Falkland Islands) Order 1974 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.— Elizabeth R.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

RIVER WEAR BARRAGE BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

DUMBARTON BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Cohabitation Rule (Disabled Persons)

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services on what grounds she has extended the cohabitation rule to the disabled.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the proposals in the Social Security Benefits Bill relating to non-contributory in-valdity pension and invalid care allowance, under which a woman who is living with a man as his wife would be treated in the same way as a married woman who is living with her husband. I am sure that this parallel treatment is right in principle.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that that is an unsatisfactory, if not a disgraceful, answer? It demonstrates the male chauvinist assumption that only the man can be the breadwinner. Is he aware that this unwarranted discrimination against women fits ill with the Equal Pay Act and the intention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to introduce an anti-discrimination Bill? Will he ensure that in these proposals men and women will qualify for the benefits as of right by reason of their disability and not their marital status?

Mr. Morris: I said it was right in principle because it would be wrong to treat the co-habitee preferentially compared with the married woman.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.

Mr. Morris: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in a letter,
We readily accept that there is a desire to make progress beyond the limits of those changes"—
the non-contributory invalidity pension and the invalid care allowance—
which we hope to introduce in the near future.

Mr. Boscawen: Is the Minister aware that this universally-disliked cohabitation rule would have been totally redundant


had the Labour Party followed the proposals of the Conservative Party and included the disabled housewife in the Bill which the Government have brought forward?

Mr. Morris: We hope to provide for the disabled housewife after the introduction of the non-contributory invalidity pension and the invalid care allowance. The cohabitation rule applies across the system and not to this area alone.

Secure Accommodation (Young Persons)

Mr. Charles Irving: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps she is taking to ensure sufficient secure accommodation is provided for disturbed young boys and girls.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. David Owen): We have already given, and will continue to give, the highest possible priority to secure units in community homes. Construction of two new youth treatment centres, which are to be administered by the Department for children in local authority care who require special facilities, is planned to begin in 1975 and 1976 respectively, and the existing centre is to be enlarged.

Mr. Irving: Is the Minister fully aware of the gravity of the situation? It is nothing short of a national scandal that 425 boys and girls between the ages of 14 and 16 are in adult prisons and remand homes because of the lack of secure accommodation provided by local authorities.

Dr. Owen: I am well aware of the problem. The House discussed it and related issues yesterday, but it is very complex and the Government are treating it with great seriousness.

Mrs. Renée Short: Is my hon. Friend aware that the directors of social services have already protested at the effect of the December 1973 cuts on their building programme for secure homes? It is essential to restore this capital expenditure as soon as possible.

Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend is right. We have restored the December cuts of the previous Government. We have given an extra £1·5 million to these projects.

I regret that they have not included as large a number of secure units as I had hoped. We had to be selective, and we could not give aid in other areas where we are equally pressed.

Mr. Steen: Will the Secretary of State make money available by way of direct grant rather than through the rate support scheme, in which the money tends to be lost and to be used for other purposes?

Dr. Owen: Capital expenditure is already a key sector allocation for the social services. Revenue is dealt with through the rate support grant. If the hon. Gentleman studies the formula to be applied for next year, he will see that we have made special provision for children. I hope that it will be enough. We are sensitive to the demands made on local authorities by the rise in juvenile delinquency.

Sir G. Howe: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm figures given to me to the effect that the number of places available in community homes at the end of June this year was about 2,000 fewer than at the end of March last year, and that the number of places occupied in community homes at the end of June this year was 200 fewer than at the end of March last year? Will he also confirm that this reduction may be due to the laudable intention to raise staffing standards in community homes but that it is dangerous to try to press too far in that direction if the consequence is to increase the number of young people held in prison?

Dr. Owen: I shall write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman with the exact figures. There has been the trend he indicates, and we shall have to examine the question of balance between standards and providing accommodation. The issue was discussed with the regional planning committees when I met them in the summer.

Retirement Pensioners

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the Government's view on payments in kind rather than cash to retirement pensioners.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mrs. Barbara Castle): The


Government's view is that it is better as a general rule to provide pensioners with income in cash, which they can spend as they wish, rather than to make payments in kind.

Mr. McCrindle: I am delighted to hear that, but does not the right hon. Lady feel that with concessionary bus fares and beef tokens, and now the pressure for free television licences, we are running the risk of telling the old people what they should do with their own money? Would it not be far better if the right hon. Lady and any future Government were to review pensions as often as possible, pay as much as possible and end the somewhat charity-type attitude that seems to indicate that we know better than the old people how to spend their money?

Mrs. Castle: I am a little surprised to hear that from the hon. Gentleman, whose party saddled us with the butter token scheme—one of the most absurd pieces of means-tested payments in kind at high administrative cost that one could ever hope to dream up.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a great deal of animosity has been created among old-age pensioners over television licences, especially among those who do not live in homes or in good warden schemes, where the old people have a television licence for about 5p a year? Other poor pensioners, without all the amenities that are a tremendous help to people in such homes and schemes, have to pay the full licence fee.

Mrs. Castle: I realise that there are anomalies. It is always the anomalies that seem to cause the greatest sense of frustration rather than the lack of a particular facility. But the question of television licence fees is one for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Cormack: I welcome what the right hon. Lady said in general terms, but I ask her to reconsider the question of bus travel for old people, which creates considerable difficulties in constituencies such as mine where authorities overlap. Is there not a case for a uniform system of bus passes, particularly for those living in rural areas?

Mrs. Castle: The concessionary fares scheme is a matter for the local authorities concerned. I do not think that this is an appropriate moment to make it mandatory.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend accept that most of us on the Government benches will welcome her preference for cash rather than other supplementary benefits? Does she agree, however, that there may be a need in the short term to expand supplementary benefits, largely due to the devaluation of the pensioners' status in the years of Conservative government?

Mrs. Castle: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There has been a devaluation not only of the pensioners' status but of their income. That is why we gave priority, and will continue to give priority, to effective cash increases in the pension. The contrast is there to be seen. The large increase we gave in July still represents a real increase of 10 per cent. in terms of the October price level, whereas the value of the increase by our predecessors in October 1973 had disappeared at the end of four months.

NHS Personnel (Insurance Cover)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will make a statement on the steps she intends to take to provide complete insurance cover for all nursing and other personnel within the National Health Service in the course of their employment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alec Jones): The existing arrangements for paid sick leave and payment of injury benefits to National Health Service staff apply to cases of personal injury occurring in the course of employment. Third party claims are normally met by NHS employing authorities which may be held to be vicariously liable for the negligence—other than criminal negligence—of their employees in the course of the employment. Such claims are met from voted moneys and no insurance arrangements are necessary.

Mr. Hamilton: I am not sure what that answer means. Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the promise made by the late Dick Crossman a few years


ago about the coverage of nurses involved in accidents while travelling in ambulances, for instance, will be honoured? They were not covered, and a specific case was raised at that time by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Price). The unions are very concerned that in such circumstances the young people in question should be covered within the health service.

Mr. Jones: I can well understand my hon. Friend's saying that he could not understand the answer. I must confess that I had considerable difficulty in understanding his Question. I would not want to be held responsible for any promise made by Mr. Richard Crossman at any time throughout his life. The best way of dealing with the matter is for my hon. Friend to put down a Question dealing with the specific point or to write to me, or he might prefer to come to see me about it.

Mr. Molloy: If my hon. Friend the Minister wants to understand the problem, will he consider seeing the leaders of the various organisations representing the staff, such as the Confederation of Health Service Employees, which will be able to explain the problem in detail? They will no doubt also be able to advise my hon. Friend what legislation he should introduce to cover the problem now facing the nursing and auxiliary staffs in the health service.

Mr. Jones: I am aware of the problem. My difficulty was in understanding the wording of the Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). I am prepared at all times to meet representatives of those employed in the health service on this or any other issue that worries them.

Mentally Handicapped Persons (Services)

Mr. Thome: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she has any early plans to improve the services for the mentally handicapped; and whether she will publish such plans.

Dr. Owen: I have recently issued guidelines to local authorities for their capital planning for the financial years 1975/76–1977/78. I had hoped to make a more comprehensive statement about mental handicap services around

the end of the year, but it may now take a little longer.

Mr. Thorne: Do I correctly understand from my hon. Friend that one of the inhibiting factors is the lack of resources available to the Department? Does he consider that it might be useful if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State used her position within the Cabinet to ensure that more resources were allocated from defence to social service provision of the type with which the Question deals?

Dr. Owen: The question of cost is somewhat wider, but I can say that my right hon. Friend has already used her influence within the past few weeks. An additional £1·5 million has been made available for local authority mentally-handicapped building projects, which will restore about half the cut made in December 1973. We have also stressed in the guidance to local authorities that we attach considerable importance to trying to achieve the target figures set out in "Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped".

Disabled Persons (Public Buildings Access)

Mr. Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will take steps to amend the Fire Precautions Act so that adequate access to public buildings is provided for disabled persons.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Amendment of the Fire Precautions Act would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am concerned to promote the fullest possible access for disabled people to public and social buildings. I understand that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Home Department and for the Environment have this question of access to public buildings under active consideration at present. They are keeping me in close touch with developments.

Mr. Hannam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but is he aware that there are grave anomalies, for example where disabled people have to be removed from wheelchairs in cinemas or theatres and put into seats and are not allowed to remain in their wheelchairs in the gangways? Is he also


aware that other disabled people are not allowed to use the lifts by themselves in concert halls and other public buildings when for years they have been accustomed to using the lifts? Will he press the Home Secretary to relax the strict interpretation of the rules under the Fire Precautions Act to allow disabled people to continue to have increasing access to public buildings?

Mr. Morris: I shall do everything possible to help. There was a meeting on access yesterday between officials of the Department of the Environment and of the Central Council for the Disabled. This followed a meeting in July. The Department is also consulting the Central Council for the Disabled on the draft of a design code on means of escape from fire for buildings not covered by the existing Building Regulations, and I have asked to be kept closely in touch with the outcome of the discussions.

Breast Cancer Diagnosis

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what advice she has received from her special advisers on the early detection of breast cancer as to the viability of a screening programme for women at risk using the new diagnostic techniques which are now available; and if she will make a statement.

Dr. Owen: I have not yet received the report of the joint working group set up by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee to advise on screening for breast cancer. I have promised my hon. Friend that I will keep her informed of the conclusions we reach.

Mrs. Butler: Is it not unfortunate that the Department's special adviser should make such a pessimistic broadcast just at the time when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is preparing a White Paper on preventive medicine? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the views of those who are pressing for more early diagnostic clinics with up-to-date techniques for all women at risk will equally be taken into account in the White Paper when it is published?

Dr. Owen: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are hoping to produce a consultative document on all aspects of preventive medicine some time

next year and we will be looking at this matter, but I hope to make a statement on the specific problem of breast screening rather earlier than that.

Cohabitation (Definition)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is her Department's definition of cohabitation as it affects social benefits.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley): What has to be decided is whether the relationship between a man and a woman who live together is such that they are to be regarded as living as man and wife.

Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the application of this rule is causing great bitterness and hardship in many cases? Can he make clear to social security staff that their only concern is whether there is financial support between one person and the other and that the personal and emotional relationships between two people are no business of theirs at all?

Mr. O'Malley: I am aware of the concern which exists in some quarters regarding the cohabitation rule. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has referred the whole question of the cohabitation rule to the Supplementary Benefits Commission, which is now considering it.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that all documents giving advice to officials in DHSS offices regarding the criteria they should use in arbitrating on this matter will be published? Surely no secrecy is justified in this matter.

Mr. O'Malley: There is no secret about what the criteria are. The Supplementary Benefits Commission has published in its handbook some of the major considerations which are taken into account when a decision has to be made on the cohabitation rule. What I think the House would regard as significant and helpful is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not only understood and listened to the complaints made about the cohabitation rule, both in the last Parliament and in this Parliament, but has acted on the matter and has referred the


question for detailed and thorough examination by the Supplementary Benefits Commission.

Mr. Leadbitter: Is my hon. Friend aware that this matter has gone on in this House for far too long and that common sense tells us that this is an irritant? Is it not the case that the rule does not apply the other way round to men? Cannot he give an assurance, in spite of the fact that this matter has been referred to the Supplementary Benefits Commission that there is determination by his Department to get rid of this obnoxious scheme as soon as possible?

Mr. O'Malley: My hon. Friend is right in saying that there has been concern in the House for some years about the operation of the cohabitation rule, but until my right hon. Friend became Secretary of State nothing was done about it. The present Government have acted and have referred the whole matter to the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I am sure that the whole House will accept that it would clearly be foolish to come to any conclusions before we have the detailed report of the commission's consideration of the matter.

Sir G. Howe: While that reference is taking place, are not the Government prepared to act on the recommendations of the Finer Committee, following on those of the Fisher Committee, to the effect that where a woman has been drawing benefit for an established period and denies the facts upon which it is to be withdrawn, the benefit should remain in payment until the matter has been considered by a tribunal?

Mr. O'Malley: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made a statement about the Finer Committee. No doubt the House will return to that at some future date. With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it is sensible that the whole question of the cohabitation rule should be considered when we have the detailed report of the Supplementary Benefits Commission.

Supplementary Benefit Calculations

Mr. Gould: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she will make a statement on the progress made so far with the Supplementary Benefits Commission's experimental exercise in issuing

to some new claimants for supplementary benefit a precise statement of how their benefit is calculated.

Mr. Alec Jones: The experiment began in 19 offices on 9th October and is expected to continue for about six months.

Mr. Gould: Does my hon. Friend accept that many supplementary benefit claimants have no idea how their benefit is calculated and accordingly have the impression that it is fixed arbitrarily? Does he realise that this is one of the major reasons for the feeling of grievance and suspicion which many claimants have towards the system? Will he therefore apply to all claimants as soon as practicable the lessons to be learned from the pilot scheme?

Mr. Jones: This is the reason why the pilot scheme is under way. It is important that we deal with this matter in the way my hon. Friend suggests, and it is desperately important that whatever we do we make the forms issued to claimants clearly understandable to them, otherwise we are no better off.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Since the scheme can apply only to a sample number of claimants, will my hon. Friend consider publishing the A Code so that all claimants can work out their entitlement to benefit and Members of Parliament can better advise them? Does he appreciate that if legal aid is extended to the appeals tribunals, as recommended by the Law Society, solicitors will not for long tolerate a situation in which the principles on which Supplementary Benefits Commission officers exercise their discretion remain secret?

Mr. Jones: With due respect to my hon. Friend, his supplementary question is not related to the investigation now taking place as referred to in the Question.

Supplementary Benefit (Industrial Disputes)

Mrs. Knight: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the aggregate cost to public funds of supplementary benefit paid to those involved in industrial disputes up to the latest date for which figures are available, expressed at an annual rate; and what were the


corresponding figures for each of the last 10 years.

Mr. O'Malley: Up to 26th November 1974, a provisional total of £4,862,275 had been paid out this year in supplementary benefit during trade disputes. It will be misleading to express figures for less than a full year as an annual rate. With permission, I will circulate the rest of the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mrs. Knight: Does the Minister recall telling me on 21st November in this House that men on strike had never received benefit on their own behalf? Does he not agree that single men often receive benefits on their own behalf when they are on strike and that because rent and hire-purchase payments are paid to married men they also can be said to receive payments? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the House and the country should be properly informed on this subject?

Mr. O'Malley: Certainly there is full information available, because hon. Members, including one hon. Gentleman who has since lost his seat, have asked Questions on this subject since 1966. The purpose of almost all the Questions has been a desire to use the withdrawal of supplementary benefit as a weapon against men on strike through starving their wives and children.
With reference to the specific point raised by the hon. Lady, it is the case that, while there is in general no entitlement, in exceptional circumstances such as, for example, when a single man on strike could be put out of his lodgings because he had no money, payments are made. Of the total payments of £4·8 million in respect of trade disputes this year, however, only £46,000 was paid in such circumstances. I point out to the hon. Lady that £44,000 of public expenditure arose during the miners' strike which was caused by the Conservative administration.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Will my hon. Friend remember too that many single women who are laid off as a result of industrial disputes in which they have not participated find great difficulty in obtaining any money by way of supplementary benefit? Will he do something to alter the rules to enable women in this situa-

tion to withstand the financial burdens which they then have to bear?

Mr. O'Malley: I understand the concern which has been expressed by my hon. Friends over a numbers of years about the operation of this provision and its application indirectly to the payment of supplementary benefit. In recognising the problem which my hon. and learned Friend has put forward, all I can say is that we are considering improvements in the overall level of social security payments against a background of severe public expenditure restraint. All of these items will therefore have to be put into a proper list of priorities for possible action at some time in future.

Sir G. Howe: Leaving on one side the question of the miners' strike, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to confirm that benefit is payable under this system to, for example, the dustmen in London who are now on strike in protest against the simple fact that some of their colleagues are facing charges under the law? Does he not recognise that the continuation of this system without any willingness on the part of himself and his colleagues even to consider that it gives rise to feelings of injustice on the part of taxpayers and ratepayers is becoming increasingly intolerable?

Mr. O'Malley: I can understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanting to forget the miners' strike and the industrial legislation with which he has been concerned. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] This is yet another example in the House of the way the right hon. and learned Gentleman has deliberately turned away from and spurned the policies followed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). We are operating the payment of supplementary benefit to strikers under legislation passed through this House when his right hon. Friend was Secretary of State for Social Services between 1970 and 1974. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has any complaints, he should be complaining about that legislation and not the operations of the present Government.

Mrs. Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on


the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Following is the information:

Table of supplementary benefit payments made in trade disputes for the first 11 months of each of the years 1964–73.

Year





Amount








£


1964
…
…
…
…
…
49,021


1965
…
…
…
…
…
65,039


1966
…
…
…
…
…
122,523


1967
…
…
…
…
…
344,589


1968
…
…
…
…
…
308,122


1969
…
…
…
…
…
679,990


1970
…
…
…
…
…
1,291,497


1971
…
…
…
…
…
4,194,448


1972
…
…
…
…
…
8,550,699


1973
…
…
…
…
…
698,775

Private Patients

Mr. Steen: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, in her consideration of the policy of phasing out private beds from the National Health Service, if she will consider the merits of an annual tax refund for those patients who do not use or choose to use the National Health Service.

Mrs. Castle: No, Sir. In my view this would be neither right nor practicable.

Mr. Steen: Will the right hon. Lady consider allowing the patient who chooses to take medical treatment in private hospitals to use some of the expensive specialist equipment found in National Health Service hospitals? Will these patients be allowed to use such equipment quite freely?

Mrs. Castle: I am sorry if I have not understood the hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that it was not a purely private defect of my own. It is a fundamental principle of the National Health Service that its services are available to all in this country who need them. Many patients who seek private treatment for some purposes none the less rely totally on the health service for other purposes, such as accident situations, emergencies or long-term and more profound problems. Therefore, since the service has to be financed out of taxation, it is only right that everybody should contribute.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will not my right hon. Friend accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion gladly, provided that all pri-

vate patients pay a considerable levy towards the training under the State system of doctors who treat them as private patients? Would not this continue to ensure that the private sector contributes to the amount of subsidy it gets from the National Health Service?

Mrs. Castle: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that private patients get a very good deal from the National Health Service since they do not pay any levy towards the benefits they enjoy. They continue to receive the best of both worlds. That is why we think something should be done about it.

Mr. Onslow: When the right hon. Lady considers the number of wards which are closed and the facilities not available because of a shortage of staff, and when she reflects on the possible dangers to mothers as a result of the premature inducement of birth because staff cannot be persuaded to provide 24-hour cover for maternity units, does she think that this is the right moment to starve the hospital budget of the £30 million contributed from the private side?

Mrs. Castle: I certainly think that this is the right moment for us to proceed under a phased programme, which we are now negotiating, to make available to National Health Service patients the beds currently earmarked for private patients in the NHS. The occupancy rate of these is well below what it ought to be if we are to get the full use of resources which we need.

Wage Stop Rule

Mr. Robin F. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultations she has had with the Supplementary Benefits Commission on the abolition of the wage stop rule; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Alec Jones: In my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) on 19th November—[Vol. 881, c. 373]—it was explained that my right hon. Friend would keep this suggestion under consideration. At present she has no statement to make. My right hon. Friend is, however, in close touch with the Supplementary Benefits Commission on this as on other matters concerning supplementary benefits.

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that faint gleam of hope. In carrying out this consultation with the Supplementary Benefits Commission, will my hon. Friend convey to it the reply he gave to a recent Question of mine which showed that the great majority of those who were wage stopped had been unemployed for more than a year? How does my hon. Friend justify the existence of a rule which notoriously discriminates against the long-term unemployed, the disabled and those who have large families when they are precisely the groups which the Department ought to try to help most?

Mr. Jones: I will ensure that the point made by my hon. Friend is conveyed to the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I realise that the subject of the wage stop is one of the irritants to which many hon. Members have referred on numerous occasions. When we consider this matter we ought to be considering it as part of the general problem associated with low wages and family support.

Speech Therapy

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations she has received from the College of Speech Therapists about the implementation of the Quirk Report; and what reply she has sent.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) on 3rd December.—[Vol. 882, c. 418.]

Mr. Beith: Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that he could be a bit more communicative to the House, in all corners of which there is deep concern about this question? Does he not recognise that it has been bad enough to have a serious shortage of speech therapists but that the administrative delay in obtaining the organisation of speech therapists through the appointment of area speech therapists is making matters worse? Can he act more quickly?

Mr. Morris: My reply of 3rd September was communicative. My right hon. Friend wrote at great length to the college on 26th November. I understand the hon. Member's insistence about

urgency. We shall move as rapidly as we can.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will my hon. Friend accept that my hon. Friends and I are very well satisfied with the efforts made by his Department and himself to increase the number of speech therapists? Will he bear in mind that there are still a good many young children waiting for speech training and that once we can get them trained they will be able to earn their living rather than be a burden on the State? Will he push matters as hard as he can to make sure that we have more speech therapists?

Mr. Morris: Yes, Sir. The Quirk Report envisaged a near trebling of the number of speech therapists in addition to the recruitment of a large number of aides to assist those therapists in their work. I am extremely conscious of the point made by my hon. Friend.

Calderstones Hospital

Mr. David Walder: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what new categories of adult patients are now admitted to Calderstones Hospital, Whalley, Lancashire; and what categories are allowed outside the hospital unsupervised.

Dr. Owen: No new categories of patients are being admitted. Patients are allowed outside the hospital unsupervised only at the discretion of the responsible medical officer. I will, of course, be prepared to look at any individual case which may be causing concern to the hon. Member.

Mr. Walder: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but I must bring to his notice the local situation and ask whether he is aware that in the last 12 months there has been an increase in the number of incidents of vandalism, indecency and trespass which, were it not for the tolerance of the local population, might well have become matters for the courts and the police.

Dr. Owen: I recognise that these hospitals sometimes put strains on local communities, but broadly speaking there are good relationships between the local community and the hospital. I will look at the specific incidents mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Christmas Bonus

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what examination she has made of the number of mentally and physically handicapped people who did not qualify for a £10 Christmas bonus in 1974, evidence of which had been supplied to her by the hon. Member for Cannock; what steps she was taking to ensure that all disabled people received this 1974 Christmas bonus; and if she will make a statement.

Mrs. Castle: Disabled people who received one of the qualifying benefits for the relevant week were entitled to the Christmas bonus. I will write to my hon. Friend about the individual case he has brought to my attention.

Mr. Roberts: Although all Government supporters believe that the extension of the £10 bonus is a compassionate step, does not my right hon. Friend agree that many thousands of disabled persons, including the one about whom I wrote to her, have been confused, as hon. and right hon. Members undoubtedly have been, by the advertisement? Those disabled people felt that they qualified for the bonus and were bitterly disappointed to find that they did not. Will my right hon. Friend, even at this eleventh hour, extend the bonus to all categories of disabled people?

Mrs. Castle: It was always made clear, in our manifesto and during the election and in the Department's advertisements, that the bonus was to be applied to a list of qualifying benefits, including the invalidity pension and the attendance allowance. In the case to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention the difficulty is that the person concerned is dependent on supplementary benefit. There would be great difficulties in extending the bonus to supplementary beneficiaries. If we were to extend the coverage to long-term supplementary beneficiaries who qualify for the long-term scale rate, our local officers would have to scrutinise nearly a million individual cases, and this would impose an enormous burden in terms of administrative time, extra staff and administrative cost. If the non-contributory invalidity pension for which we are legislating this Session had been in operation by this

Christmas the person to whom my hon. Friend has drawn my attention would in all probability have been receiving a qualifying benefit and would, therefore, have been entitled to the bonus. That shows how important it is to give disabled people, who at present depend on supplementary benefit, a benefit as of right. That is the answer.

National Insurance Contributions

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what will be the additional total sum which will be raised from married women by the increase in contributions from 0·6 per cent. to 2 per cent. in the "married women's option" contained in the Social Security Amendment Bill.

Mr. Cormack: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much extra money it is estimated will be raised in 1975–76 from the higher national insurance rates proposed in the Social Security Amendment Bill; and what the estimated increase in the Exchequer contribution will be.

Mr. Fairgrieve: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much extra money it is estimated will be raised in 1975–76 from the alterations in the national insurance rates for employees proposed in the Social Security Amendment Bill.

Mr. O'Malley: Since the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It shows that the additional income of £610 million in 1975–76 includes £47 million from opted-out married women, £83 million from other employees and £21 million from the self-employed.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does the Minister realise that three out of four married women who exercise the option will regard the payment of an additional £47 million as a great hardship? Does he recall admitting that with the present high rate of inflation the income earned by women is no longer merely a pleasant extra bit of money but is an essential part of the family budget? In these days of inflation women want to maximise their earnings and not pay £47 million for the benefit of the National Insurance Scheme.

Mr. O'Malley: I am afraid that the hon. Lady is too often wrong, and she is again wrong this afternoon. I think that married women will be pleased that as a result of the structure which begins to operate from April 1975 they will not be paying more. A married woman with an income of £46 a week, if she is not contracted out, will have a decrease of £1·18 on her national insurance contributions, and if she is contracted out she will have a decrease of 80p. The generality of married women will be paying far less as from April 1975. I do not see how the Opposition can make that into an increase.

Mr. Cormack: Notwithstanding his remarks about married women, will the hon. Gentleman please look again at the position of the self-employed, who are getting a raw deal? Now that the other place has given the Government a chance to reflect upon the enormity of this imposition, will they at long last see sense and do something?

Mr. O'Malley: If it were true—we do not accept that it is—that the self-employed are getting a raw deal, it is a raw deal under the structure which the Government inherited from the previous administration. We have reduced in real terms the contributions which at least one-third and perhaps up to one-half of the self-employed will pay as from April 1975 compared with the proposals put forward under the Social Security Act 1973.

Following is the information:

The increase in income from Class I and 4 contributions in 1975–76 resulting from the new rates in the Social Security Amendment Bill, compared with the rates in the Social Security Act 1973, will at July 1974 earnings levels be as follows:


£ million


Opted-out married women
47


Other employees
83


Employers
366


Class 4
21


Total
517


Treasury supplement (18 per cent) 
93


Grand total
610

These figures ignore the extra delay in the receipt of earnings-related contributions and exclude the effect of bringing up to the 1974 level the outdated flate-rate Class 2 and 3 contributions originally enacted in the 1973 Act.

WEST MIDLANDS

Ql. Mr. Rooker: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an early official visit to the West Midlands.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to visit the West Midlands.

Mr. Rooker: Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister, before he comes to the West Midlands, to look at paragraph 151 of the report published last week by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and thereafter come to my constituency of Perry Barr, where he will see the appalling conditions under which my constituents live as a result of motorway noise, which the commission forecasts will apply by 1980 to half the population of the country?

Mr. Short: I know of my hon. Friend's great concern about this matter. He has raised it four or five times since he came to the House in February. Five thousand houses affected by the M6 and the M5 have been identified as being eligible for insulation. The contracts for those houses are being let as quickly as possible. In addition the noise barriers at Perry Beeches are being extended, and other barriers are being provided at suitable places. I shall refer to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the paragraph in the Royal Commission's report mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Eyre: Will the Leader of the House undertake that before visiting the West Midlands the Prime Minister will study the report which has recently been published by the West Midlands County Council entitled "A Time for Action"? The report expresses great concern about future economic trends in the city area and asks that the present over-dependence upon metal-using industries shall not be made worse by further use of centralised controls leading to a deterioration in the employment situation in this densely populated metropolitan county.

Mr. Short: Certainly, I shall refer the report to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

TUC AND CBI

Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to meet the TUC and CBI.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to meet representatives of the CBI but he has agreed to meet representatives of the TUC later this week to receive their views on issues raised by the case of the Shrewsbury pickets.

Mr. Ashley: The TUC is asked to campaign for many people, including the Shrewsbury pickets, but my purpose in raising the Question today is to request my right hon. Friend to ask the Prime Minister next time he sees the TUC to urge it to campaign for disabled people. It is time that disabled people were made part of the social contract. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister to take up with the TUC the welfare of disabled people, which is a major consideration in carrying out the social contract?

Mr. Short: My hon. Friend is pushing at an open door. Disabled people are a very important part of the social contract. The social contract is concerned with all people who are unable to work or whose ability to work is impaired because of age, youth and disability. Certainly the social contract is concerned with those people, and that is why the Government have paid so much attention to them.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister, when he returns, to consult him so that he may prompt the Prime Minister to make sure that when he discusses matters with the TUC he does not discuss matters which are the proper concern of this House to decide and not for the TUC to decide?

Mr. Short: There is always the closest liaison between the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend advise the Prime Minister, when later this week he discusses with the TUC the subject of the Shrewsbury pickets, to bear in mind that there are strong feelings on the Labour benches on this matter?

Mr. Short: I realise that there are strong feelings on this matter. The Prime Minister has agreed to see the TUC to discuss the Shrewsbury pickets because

the matter is no longer sub judice. My right hon. Friend has made it clear from the start, and he has made it clear to the TUC, that this is entirely a matter for the Home Secretary. What advice he gives on prerogative is entirely a matter for the Home Secretary alone and is not a matter for the collective decision of Ministers.

Mr. Heath: Since, during the nine months the Labour Government have been in office, under the social contract the rate of price inflation has got worse and not better, the rate of wage inflation has got worse and not better, the number of days lost through strikes has got worse and not better, and the level of employment has got worse and not better, when will the Government introduce an effective economic policy, and what will it be?

Mr. Short: The Government have got an effective economic policy. It is an economic policy which requires the support of everybody in the country, including the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Heath: If the right hon. Gentleman would introduce the economic policy which we propose, we would gladly support him.

Mr. Short: If the right hon. Gentleman wanted to get the country out of its difficulties, he would put his shoulder behind the social contract and not knock it.

Mr. Thorpe: Without dissenting from the right hon. Gentleman's view about the relationship of the Home Secretary with the exercise of the prerogative in the matter of the Shrewsbury pickets, may we take it that the Home Secretary's reply of 13 th November will represent the Government's view when the Prime Minister meets the TUC?

Mr. Short: As I said, this is entirely a matter for the Home Secretary. The Prime Minister has agreed to see the TUC on this matter because these are trade unionists in gaol.

TERRORISM

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Prime Minister whether he will seek an urgent meeting with the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland to co-ordinate British and Irish action against terrorism.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend has met Mr. Cosgrave on a number of occasions this year and will, of course, be seeing him at the Heads of Government meeting now taking place in Paris, but at present he has no plans for a further bilateral meeting on this issue. The Government, however, keep in close touch with the Government of the Republic on this and other matters and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and other Ministers met the Minister for Justice, Mr. Cooney, yesterday to discuss ways of dealing with terrorism.

Mr. Rifkind: Is the Leader of the House aware of the approval of both sides of the House at the decision of the Irish Government to seek powers for their own courts to try offenders for terrorist offences which take place in the United Kingdom? Will he inform the House what success the Government have been having in their representations to the Irish Government to extend the scope of these provisions to include major terrorist activities such as hijacking or murder committed within the United Kingdom?

Mr. Short: I cannot say anything about the latter part of the supplementary question, but the Dail has already introduced legislation on this matter and reciprocal legislation will be introduced in this House before Christmas.

Mr. Bidwell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy of internment in Northern Ireland, started by the Conservative Government, apparently with the acquiescence of the then Opposition, has been an unmitigated disaster since it provides a breeding ground for terrorists? Does he not agree that the sooner we have a Bill of Rights for the people of Northern Ireland, the better we shall be able to break the polarisation caused by that policy and its disastrous consequences?

Mr. Short: There are different views on many of these matters. We have a great many debates on Irish matters on orders coming up before Parliament, and the sort of matter my hon. Friend mentions can be discussed on those occasions.

PRESS (ROYAL COMMISSION)

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Prime Minister if he will publish the evidence which he intends to give to the Royal Commission on the Press.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on 28th November to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler).—[Vol. 882, c. 223.]

Mr. Tebbit: Since, however, the Lord President is answering Questions today, and since of late he has been much more understanding and flexible towards the needs of the House, will he convey that new-found flexibility to the Prime Minister and suggest to him that he should end the tailk of a smear campaign in the Press against the Prime Minister by persuading him to publish any evidence which he possesses—in other words, that he should stop his smear campaign against the Press?

Mr. Short: The Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions that he believes that the appropriate way to deal with this matter is to submit his evidence to the Royal Commission. I shall be submitting mine as well.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (SPEECH)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Education and Science on economic matters on 23rd November at Bromsgrove represents Government policy.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on 2nd December to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont). —[Vol. 882, c. 368.]

Mr. Skinner: Has my right hon. Friend read any of the dull, stereotyped speeches made recently by the Secretary of State for Education and Science? Does he not think that the Secretary of State would


be a little better occupied it he used his time to build more schools and to replace slum schools, such as those at Whitwell in my constituency? Before the Prime Minister meets the TUC to discuss the question of the Shrewsbury pickets, might it not be advisable for him to ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science for a clearance certificate?

Mr. Short: In so far as my right hon. Friend's speeches are concerned with purely domestic affairs in the Labour Party, no question of Government policy arises. With regard to the parts of my right hon. Friend's speeches which relate to Government policy, those speeches represent Government policy.

Mr. Lawson: Will the Leader of the House clearly say that he endorses the views which the Secretary of State for Education and Science expressed with such courage on the issue of the Shrewsbury pickets?

Mr. Short: I have already answered questions about the Shrewsbury pickets.

BRUSSELS

Mr. Churchill: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Brussels.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Brussels.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Churchill: Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to explain to the British people how, despite the fact that by 1980 Britain as a nation will be self-sufficient in energy terms, none the less Britain's share of the EEC's gross national product will have declined relative to that of our partners to a level of 14 per cent. under a Labour Government?

Mr. Edward Short: It is much too early to estimate that yet.

Mrs. Renée Short: Will my right hon. Friend draw the Prime Minister's atten-

tion to the growing concern among large sections of the British public about the increasing number of forays by people from Brussels, obviously at a considerable cost in money terms and other resources, seeking to brainwash the British public on the need to remain in the Common Market? Will my right hon. Friend make representations on this matter?

Mr. Edward Short: I am sure that the British public, after having endured the British Press for so long, are much too mature to be brainwashed by anybody in Brussels.

Mr. Heath: As the Leader of the House frankly said that it is much too early yet to calculate the percentage of United Kingdom GNP in 1980 compared with that of other Community members, may we be told on what basis all the negotiations in relation to the contribution to the European budget in 1980 are being carried out?

Mr. Edward Short: The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well the terms on which we are renegotiating. We have spelt them out time and again, and indeed my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spelt them out on Saturday. Does not the Leader of the Opposition agree that it is a pity that he did not insist on those terms when he had responsibility for these matters?

Mr. Madden: Will the British Government be raising with our NATO allies the serious charges made today about the waste of money and manpower within NATO arising from duplication of weapons and equipment?

Mr. Edward Short: I imagine that that matter will not be raised today at the meeting in Paris.

Mr. Blaker: Regarding the answer that the right hon. Gentleman has just given to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, may I ask whether he is aware that the Foreign Secretary gave the figure of 14 per cent. earlier this year? Is he now repudiating that estimate?

Mr. Edward Short: I also recall something said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech about extrapolating trends from a hardly known past through a partly known present to


an unknown future. That is what is happening in this instance.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Ordered,
That the draft European Centre for Medium range Weather Forecasts (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

Ordered,
That the draft International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

SHREWSBURY PICKETS

Mr. Cormack: As a result of the Lord President's answer to Question No. 2 to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to discuss a specific matter of public importance that should have urgent consideration; namely,
the decision of the Prime Minister to meet the TUC to discuss the question of the Shrewsbury pickets ".
I suggest that this matter is self-evidently specific and that it is equally self-evidently a matter of the gravest public importance because it raises extremely vital constitutional issues, such as the discussion of matters, which should more properly be the concern of the judiciary and which have indeed been settled in a court of law, between a privileged and selected group of people and the Prime Minister of this country.
I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for not giving you notice earlier, but obviously I could not because we have only just had the answer. I hope that you will grant this request.

Mr. Speaker: Obviously, the request is made at very short notice and without notice to me, but it does not come anywhere near getting within the terms of Standing Order No. 9. My answer is "No".

SAFETY PACKAGING FOR MEDICINES BILL

3.32 p.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it compulsory for all medicines which could be fatal to young children to have child-resistant opening devices fitted.
I made the case for this Bill on 30th April this year. Although the House gave me leave to bring in that Bill, it subsequently met a sad demise at the hands of the Government, who were awaiting the report of a sub-committee of the Medicines Commission which was set up to examine the presentation of medicines relating to child safety.
The case for the Bill is that many thousands of children are poisoned by eating or drinking medicines prescribed for adults. The children poisoned in this way are very young. Almost all of them are under five years of age and very few are over seven. In other words, it is no use putting a label on a bottle or telling them that they must not take anything from a bottle of a certain colour.
The report now issued states that there are between 15,700 and 16,700 cases of child poisoning through drinking or eating medicines every year. But these are admissions to hospitals. Probably at least double that number of children are treated at clinics or by their own general practitioners.
Publicity drives aimed at telling parents and others who care for very young children to lock medicines away simply have not worked and will not work. The figures prove that they will not work. Some people are naturally careless, and even the most careful people are prone to the small domestic crises that we all meet from time to time, which mean that medicines are left unattended while mother answers the telephone or the door bell or father has everything moved so that he can redecorate.
I believe that the case has been made for action. There is an urgency about this matter which Department of Health and Social Security officials appear to disregard. I am in no circumstances blaming the Minister. I am sure that it has not been his decision. The hon. Gentleman is very busy and has many other things to do. Indeed, he is a doctor, a


humane and reasonable man, who has said in this House that he is concerned about this matter.
I brought in the original Bill in April and the committee reported in a leisurely way on 8th August after the House had gone into recess.
On 5th November a Written Answer revealed that a statement on the matter would be made
probably in the New Year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November 1974; Vol. 880, c. 98.]
I should jolly well hope that it would be made, because the new year is 12 months long and it could be a very long time before any action was taken.
Children are being poisoned every day that we delay action. Thousands more have been poisoned since April when I first raised this matter. No doubt if they had all died there would have been a greater sense of urgency. Of course, they do not all die, but they have to be treated, and the treatment is always extremely painful and unpleasant. In fact, doctors have recently warned that some children suffer long-term psychological disorders after the use of the stomach pump.
I am not happy about the report of the sub-committee, partly because it proposes action only on tablets. It states that tablets—most poisonings are the result of swallowing tablets—should be placed in reclosable containers which would be difficult for a child to open.
Tablets are not the only guilty constituents in this regard. Many children are poisoned through drinking medicines. They will not be helped by what the report recommends.
I am also unhappy about the report because of what it says about testing. The Bill that I introduced recommended that the British Standards Institution should carry out tests to ascertain whether a closing device was child-resistant. The report states that the Commission
feel unable to support the introduction of standard tests for child-resistant containers requiring participation by young children, because these would involve showing the children how to open them.
I have heard some stupid things in my time, but nothing more stupid than that. The idea of these tests is to get a room

full of children and to give them the devices to see whether they can open them within a certain period. If at the end of that time they have not succeeded in opening them, one does not go over to them and say, "Diddums, diddums, dere, dere. This is how you open it". There is no need to do that. Indeed, in America and Canada, where such tests have been successfully carried out, that was not done.
I am disappointed that the report should rely on the publicity drive. I do not think that publicity drives work. We must get away from the notion of having to spend more public money erecting hoardings or advertising on television warning the public not to allow medicines to be within the reach of children because, for the reasons that I have indicated, such measures do not work.
Parts of the report are good. It recommends that tablets ought not to look like sweets and ought not to be packed in large bottles. That is fine, but we ought to do more, in view of the evidence available to us.
People suffering from arthritis were nervous in April that the Bill that I wanted to bring in would make it impossible for them to open medicines. I intend again, if the House gives me leave to bring in the Bill, to have a special arrangement for such people so that they need not have their medicines in these bottles. The evidence from the United States and Canada, where child poisoning cases have been cut down drastically following legislation, shows that this House ought to do something to guard against this danger to children. If the cost is dear, it is not so dear as the cost of treating children in hospitals.
The attention of the Medicines Commission was first drawn to this matter in June 1973. Over a year has passed since that time. My small Bill would, I hope, provide the Government with a vehicle and an opportunity to start dealing with this problem so that children would no longer be poisoned in this way.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Jill Knight, Mr. John Page, Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mr. Clement Freud, Mr. Philip Holland, Mr. J. W. Rooker.

Safety Packaging for Medicines

Mrs. Jill Knight accordingly presented a Bill to make it compulsory for all medicines which could be fatal to young children to have child-resistant opening devices fitted: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 47.]

Orders of the Day — OFFSHORE PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. George Thomas in the Chair]

3.41 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Millan): On a point of order, Mr. Thomas. Hon. Members will have seen on the Order Paper the phrase:
Remaining Stages may also be taken ".
It is not the Government's intention to go beyond the Committee stage today. In view of the urgency of the Bill, we certainly hope that we shall obtain the full Committee stage today, but we do not intend to go beyond that. An earlier intention to do that led to those words appearing. They should no longer appear, and I hope that it is convenient to say so at this stage.

The Chairman: That is the most satisfactory point of order that has been raised since I have been in the Chair.

Clause 1

ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR PURPOSES CONNECTED WITH OFFSHORE PETROLEUM

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 7, after 'acquire', insert 'or take on lease'.
I also welcome the Minister of State's point of order. I am sure that he is showing common sense in the light of the number of amendments before us. I am sure that we can now approach this matter much more practically. I hope that that common sense will continue to prevail in the counsels of the Government, but time will tell.
The amendment is straightforward and simple. The clause empowers the Secretary of State to
acquire by agreement or compulsorily any land in Scotland for any purpose relating to the exploration for or exploitation of offshore petroleum.
There could be circumstances—I hope that there will—in which it would be equally appropriate to take land on lease


rather than to acquire it. Many of the Government's objectives could be made conditions in a lease.
The amendment is meant in a constructive spirit. As the Government have said many times, these powers will be necessary for only a certain period. We hope that: the objectives will be achieved through getting sufficient building sites for production platforms. So it is not necessary that these powers should be completely unlimited in time. If land could be taken on lease, that would be appropriate.
However, if this matter is already covered in the Bill or in the Government's mind, I should be glad of any elucidation. If the Government can proceed without compulsion, progress is much more likely when the Bill becomes law.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Millan: The amendment is unnecessary, because it is already possible under the Bill to acquire land on lease. The definition of land in Clause 19 includes an interest in or right over land. I am therefore advised that the Bill will already enable the Secretary of State to acquire land by way of lease. That would mean circumstances in which he would be acquiring land by agreement rather than compulsorily, but I think that that is the kind of circumstance that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. With that explanation, I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his assurance. I certainly would not intend to pursue the matter in the light of what he has said. However, it would help if this were more specific. The matter is not explicit without one referring to another part of the Bill. If it were more explicit, the Government might be helped in acquiring the sites. I do not press for an undertaking now, but perhaps he will look at this matter before Report.
Obviously, where it is possible to acquire land first of all by agreement and then by way of lease rather than using compulsory powers, this will help the Bill to achieve its objectives. I hope that the Government will bear this in mind when dealing with actual sites and their owners.
However, given the Minister's undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hamish Gray: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 7, leave out 'or compulsorily'.
I like to think that the Minister may be able to say the same on this amendment as he did on the previous one, that it is not really necessary, but that is hardly likely. On Second Reading, talking of the Bill in general, the Minister said:
First, it is designed to ensure that developments essential to the work of getting the oil ashore quickly can take place without delays and that they are controlled in a planned and co-ordinated way so that their contribution to the national economy is maximised."— [OFFICIAL RRPORT, 19th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 1109.]
No one would disagree with that, but we take exception to the way in which this object is to be executed. Compulsion is alien to those of us from my part of Scotland, and it is that area that the Bill at this stage will largely affect. If we accept that the Bill will be used only after all the planning procedures have been gone through, what is the point of compulsion?
When a firm applies to set up in an area to build either oil platforms or any other oil-related development, it will go through the normal planning procedures, including even a public inquiry at which every detail is considered. If, at the end of that inquiry or, even without an inquiry, after all the other planning procedures, the local authority and the Scottish Development Department agree that a particular development is desirable and suitable for a particular site—there is a willing seller and the company makes its purchase and proceeds with the development—what is the necessity for the Government to acquire the site compulsorily? I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some sort of answer to that point.
Do we, first, have a voluntary approach from the Government? What method is to be used? When the Government decide that it is necessary to take a site into public ownership, what will be the criteria? How will they decide which sites to take over and which sites they will


allow to proceed under normal direction? Are incentives to be offered to developers to encourage them to have their sites taken over? If the compulsory element is retained, the Minister will have almost unrestricted powers under the Bill. What are their strengths?
If a site is acquired and further development is proposed—for example, an oil production platform site—and the company gets successive orders and finds that the land which it is at present developing is not sufficient for the kind of orders it is getting and that it is necessary to negotiate with the land owner to take over further areas of land, will those areas also be compulsorily acquired?
If the land owner has laid down certain conditions which are acceptable to the developer in the first instance—such as a clause whereby the developer provides considerable amounts of money at the termination of his contract for reinstatement of land, what effect will this have on the Government's attitude? Will they take over all the terms in exactly the same way as the developer has done?
Let us take the case of a developer applying, perhaps, for permission to erect concrete platforms on a certain site and the Secretary of State deciding that there is not a case, in his view, for a public inquiry. At the time when the Government step in to take over the land, will it be their intention to hold a public inquiry, or will it be at that point that they will short cut the normal planning routine?
I am sorry to have to pose so many questions to the Minister, but I feel that if he can give us helpful answers it will make it very much easier for us to decide eventually whether to vote for the amendment.
Regarding the future, is it the Government's intention, when land is reinstated at the end of a project, wholly to hand over to the existing land owner, or is it the intention to hand over to a Government agency such as a local authority or a port authority? If the latter, what will be the specification for the use of the land? Will the land be used again for a form of development? There are areas in my constituency where considerable housing developments may take place. Is it the Government's intention, having compul-

sorily acquired a site, to hand it back to a local authority and allow that authority to decide the future use, or to hand it back to the original owner? How will this be done?
Those are just some of the questions which I hope the Minister will answer later.

Mr. J. Grimond: May I add my thanks to the Minister of State for his announcement at the start of our proceedings. I raised the matter on a point of order yesterday. I am glad that I have not had to reserve a bed for the night in the neighbourhood of Westminster. The original announcement was apparently an error. That was that we were to have all the remaining stages of the Bill tonight. That caused considerable concern not only among back benchers but also among local authorities and others who thought that they would have no opportunity of studying the Committee proceedings. That would have been a serious error.
The amendment raises a fundamental question about the Bill. The question is, why is the Bill necessary at all? I shall listen with interest to the Minister's answer. But I had understood that the purpose of introducing the Bill was that the Government envisage that certain sites will be urgently necessary for work in connection with oil. I had understood, further, that they envisage the possibility that they might not be able to get these sites except by compulsory purchase and that, therefore, compulsory purchase is fundamental to the Bill. However, I shall listen with interest to hear whether the Minister agrees about that.
When I read the amendment, it certainly raised in my mind some of the doubts and difficulties which we in Orkney and Shetland experienced in drafting the Bills which the local authorities of Orkney and Shetland introduced. We thought at one time that we could rely upon Section 102 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, but on looking at that we found that it was somewhat narrow. Furthermore, we considered that it might well be desirable that public authorities should control land to be used for oil development. For one thing, we came to the conclusion that public authorities could more effectively exercise their planning powers by so doing.
We also thought that they should be entitled to look at the general effect of a particular oil installation, especially in the type of area referred to by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray).
However, in addition to hearing from the Minister on the fundamental point about compulsion—which I rather understood had been accepted, at any rate by the Conservative Party, on Second Reading—I hope that the Minister will also say something about why he has found it necessary to go beyond the existing powers which the Secretary of State has under existing legislation.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) in their anxiety about the powers of compulsion which are written into the Bill. I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that my effort on Second Reading was to offer an alternative method whereby the Government might achieve their objective. I have at no time supported the compulsory element in this matter because I consider that it is unnecessary.
I want to make only a few brief points. The first is about the undoubted widespread odium which this element introduces into a Bill which we are all agreed is necessary. As a result of the Government taking this extreme measure, many people will be alienated in their views. This is a fact which applies to compulsory purchase generally and which will prove to be correct in this instance.
Unless there are much stronger reasons for including compulsion in the Bill than we have heard so far, it is regrettable that the compulsion element is included in this way. I do not think that any of us want to see undue delay. I do not intend to repeat what I said on Second Reading—that there will be alternative methods to avoid that—but the principle of compulsory purchase in a case such as this is a principle to which many of us object and which we do not want to see extended. It gives the Government of the day much too great a power.
I am not against essential developments, but I am against the hammer of the State coming down for what, if the purpose of the Bill is to be fulfilled in good faith, should be reasonably modest and agreed measures which can be achieved in other ways. Therefore, in my belief that the Government's objectives can be achieved in other ways, I, too, await with some concern their explanation of their determination to include compulsion in the Bill.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. James Sillars: I wish to ask one or two questions on this amendment. If the amendment is accepted, am I right in thinking that, the practical position, will be that we shall have a planning inquiry about a site required for oil development works, and that, after the planning inquiry has decided that the site is required for works associated with oil development, the Government will be in the position to approach people who might still be protesting about that development and have a landed interest in it, and to ask them to sell their land? Surely, if they say they do not agree to sell their land, the Government will be effectively prevented from starting this development.
Am I right in thinking that that is the practical effect of this amendment? If so, Government supporters, and anyone with any degree of responsibility in his makeup with regard to policy, must reject the amendment. The question of compulsion in respect of the pursuit of public policy is not a new principle in any Scottish legislation, whether it has been foisted upon us by a Conservative Government or promoted by a Labour Government.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: I should like to ask two questions.
First, can the Minister say whether the power to acquire land compulsorily and bring it into Government control is required to expedite oil developments surrounding the Scottish shores, or whether it is required specifically for the sake of Government control of these sites irrespective of any time factor which may be involved? These are important matters because, although many of us hold the strong belief that it is necessary to expedite the procedures, we remain to be convinced of the desirability of bringing


these sites into Government control to assure the best results for Scotland.
Second, in putting forward the requirements for compulsory powers, the Government are concerned that there may not be voluntary agreement to the acquisition of sites. Can the Minister give us specific evidence of the lack of willingness by persons who own such sites around the Scottish shores to sell their land either to private developers or to public authorities? If such examples exist, it is right that we should know of them. If not, can the Minister say why he feels such powers are necessary?

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Under the present powers regarding industrial development possessed by the Secretary of State, can land be acquired compulsorily, or does he require, in terms of this Bill, to obtain powers to acquire land compulsorily for the specific purposes of oil exploration or oil exploitation? In other words, does he not have at the present time, under his general powers, the opportunity to acquire land compulsorily by the normal process, or does he need to gain such powers as a way of introducing the expedited procedures sought later under the Bill?

Mr. Millan: The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) is accurate. If we took this provision out of the Bill and accepted the amendment, we would be left with the position that land could be acquired only by agreement, which would frustrate the whole purpose of the Bill. In circumstances where that is possible, and where time constraints are not against us, we shall try to acquire land by agreement. It is an illusion to believe that we can carry out the purposes of the Bill without compulsory powers. Without such powers, it would mean that, after having gone through the planning procedures, the planning inquiry and so on, we would have to acquire the land by agreement, and the whole process would then be completely frustrated. It is essential that we have compulsory powers contained in the Bill to carry out our intention.
The expedited acquisition procedures hang very much on the compulsory purchase powers. They are meant to provide an expedited procedure in certain circumstances of urgency. However, there

may be other cases where compulsory purchase may be required without the expedited procedure being necessary. In any case, all the powers of acquisition will depend in the first instance on planning permission having been granted for a specific site and for a specific development.
I cannot recommend to the Committee that it accepts this amendment.
The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) raised a number of matters. The principles concerning the extension of existing sites were put forward in the general explanation I gave on Second Reading and again today. Planning permission is required whether we are dealing with the original site or with an extension. In the granting of that planning permission, it is possible for both the local authority and, where appropriate, the Secretary of State to lay down certain stringent planning conditions. Nothing in that is affected by the power of compulsory acquisition, which is directed simply to the effective acquisition of the site, and that course is well precedented under housing, planning and other legislation in Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman asked me what would happen to the land when it was no longer required. Later amendments are specifically directed towards that question. I prefer therefore not to anticipate those amendments. In that regard, we are doing nothing which is unprecedented or not in accordance with existing practice. We need the compulsory power. This amendment would defeat the whole purpose of the Bill. Therefore I must reject it.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of this matter. I think he has to some extent underestimated the strength of feeling from the Opposition regarding this amendment. While I accept entirely what the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) said, nevertheless I realise that if this amendment is successful it will strike right at the heart of the Bill.
In moving this amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) was trying to elicit from the Government precisely how necessary these compulsory powers are. We heard an explanation of that point


during the Second Reading debate. However, we had hoped to hear more elaboration of how necessary these powers are. What concerns us throughout the whole of Clause 1 is the extent to which these powers can be used and the number of purposes for which they can be used. It may be that these powers will be used for a limited range of purposes. But our worry arises when the powers are so wide and have so many different purposes which in our view are not absolutely necessary for the central purposes of the Bill.
The fact that compulsion is included means that we are giving the Government very wide powers across a very much broader range of activity than the Government have possessed in the past. This is the central point of the Bill. Therefore, although in limited circumstances I should not oppose the use of compulsory powers, I become very worried when they are used so widely and broadly.
Before leaving the general point, may I say that I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty will think twice before pressing his amendment to a Division? We have expressed our views to the Minister about compulsion, and whether we believe these powers to be necessary depends largely on whether we succeed in amending other powers later in the clause. If we are successful in limiting some of those powers, it may be appropriate to keep compulsory powers.
My advice to my hon. Friends, although I still hope that the Minister will be able to give rather better explanations than he has so far given, is that we should not press the amendment but, rather, should wait until we see to what stage we get, what the powers will be used for, whether they are as wide as they appear to be at the moment, or whether we succeed in amending later powers.
I come to the two matters of detail on which I should like some clarification. What concerns some of us about the use of these compulsory powers is that, so far as we are aware, no case has arisen in relation to offshore oil development where compulsory powers were needed to acquire a site and to speed up procedures. Looking at the history of these matters,

may we have examples of cases in which compulsory powers for an expedited acquisition procedure were necessary to get a development going?
The second matter on which I seek clarification relates to the future rather than to the past. It deals with the circumstances in which these compulsory powers might be used.
Here I wish to cite a specific example in relation to Hunterston and the proposed development there. As I understand it, negotiations are relatively far advanced between the Hunterston development company and various firms which wish to build production platforms on the sites which will be available at Hunterston. Here we have a site owner ready, willing and wanting to develop it. We have developers who, subject to satisfactory agreement with the owner, are ready to proceed.
As I understand it, the only delay in this instance is with regard to the planning procedures and whether planning approval is granted by the Secretary of State for development to go ahead. In terms of the provision of the site and in terms of a willing developer wishing to get on to it, there is no delay. The only delay is on the planning side, and that matter is one for which the Secretary of State already has powers.
My question, therefore, is, what action is the Secretary of State likely to take after the passage of this Bill? Will he step into the arena at Hunterston, acquire the land from the development company, and enter into negotiation with the firms who wish to build production platforms on the site? If that is how the right hon. Gentleman intends to proceed, this is bound to lead to delay in a case in which there is a willing owner and willing developers. In such a case, I hope that the Secretary of State will not decide to use his powers under the Bill. Instead, I hope that he will allow those who are anxious to go ahead in a willing fashion to carry on in the way in which they plan to do so at present.
Some further clarification from the hon. Gentleman will help my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty to decide whether to press his amendment. It will help us all to know how these compulsory powers will be used.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. William Small (Glasgow, Garscaddan): I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), who appears today in the guise of my favourite hero, the Greek Cephalus, who threw a spear which never missed its target. My hon. Friend is on target again.
To come down to practicalities, in matters of this kind the question always is how much land is to be acquired. In a previous incarnation, I had some experience of negotiating land acquisitions between a willing seller and a willing buyer. The debate always comes round to how much, and how much is left.
Let us take, for example, a large firm. If the owner has two-thirds of it acquired compulsorily and he shifts all his cows on to the other third, it is always uneconomic in the farmer's view. If, instead, he wishes to retain half his farm, the person wishing to acquire the land is in real trouble. In normal circumstances, that is the only time that a compulsory purchase order is required. It is then that the two parties begin to discuss the economics of ownership and how much will be left.

Sir John Gilmour: Those of us who listened to the Second Reading debate learned that the provisions in the Bill concerning the acquisition of land would not be implemented until the planning procedures had been gone through. However, the Bill does not say this, and what people object to is that Clause 1 says boldly that anyone has the right to acquire land. It does not say that he has first to get planning permission. That is one reason why there are objections to the all-sweeping claim in the clause and why the Minister should give some thought to altering the wording so as to make it more agreeable to the ordinary citizen who reads the Bill but probably has not the time to read our Second Reading debate.

Mr. Harry Selby: Is not the reason for these compulsory powers to speed up the development of the production of oil? Yesterday we were told that more energy was required more quickly and that the quicker we could get oil from the North Sea the better. That was also the general under-

standing when we discussed the Bill on Second Reading.

Mr. Millan: Perhaps I might reply to some of these additional points.
First, the clause is expressed in wide terms. We shall be discussing whether they are too wide when we deal with subsequent amendments. I do not wish to anticipate those later amendments, but I remind the Committee that the powers are no wider than those announced by Mr. Gordon Campbell at the end of January, upon which the previous Government intended to legislate, and, of course, they intended operating it as overriding planning procedures completely; but we shall come to that later.
Similarly, we shall come to the planning point, and I hope I shall be able to say something hopeful and agreeable to hon. Members on both sides of the House at that time.
I was asked whether there had been cases where compulsory powers were necessary and the answer is "Yes". It has been necessary, for example, in Shetland and may turn out to be necessary in other places also. But I must make the general point, which local authorities would confirm from their own experience, that in cases where they have powers of compulsory acquisition for other purposes, the fact that there is ultimately compulsory acquisition available to the public authorities in many cases makes agreement very much easier to obtain. In the absence of compulsory purchase as a last resort, which it sometimes is, the life of public authorities in many fields would be made very much more difficult than it is at the present time.
So far as Hunterston is concerned, we are concerned there not just with acquiring land there for a short-term purpose as we are generally under the Bill but with acquiring sites for a long-term purpose of control and eventual reinstatement as well. Hon. Members must keep that in mind all the way through Clause 1. We are not simply dealing with short-term considerations here. It is very much in the interests of the local communities involved that we should have control over sites to avoid proliferation and so as to have proper powers of reinstatement; and public acquisition is very necessary from that


point of view. That answers the point on Hunterston.
In fact, there are not planning permissions available on Hunterston as things stand at present for oil production platform building but it has been made clear by the Secretary of State that he considers that particular kind of activity is a very suitable one for the Hunterston area. The Hunterston Development Company has been co-operative with the Government so far, and I paid tribute to that unreservedly during the Second Reading debate. But from a longer-term point of view it is very important that at Hunterston, even more than elsewhere, there should be public control, which can be obtained only by public ownership. That is the basic reason that we wish to take over land at Hunterston. Quite apart from any individual case, essentially we require compulsory powers to make this particular clause effective. If it were not effective, the Bill would be largely ineffective, and, therefore, this amendment would really go to the root of the Bill and make it much less worth while, if not completely useless.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I would like to press the hon. Gentleman further in relation to Hunterston as he has not answered my particular point on that. My understanding of the situation there is that there is a development company which is co-operating and is anxious to get its development. Will the company be so anxious if the ground is to be compulsorily acquired from it? If at Hunterston, where the stage has been reached where the company which owns the land and potential platform building companies which want to go there have reached, as I understand it, agreement under many heads enabling them to do so, it then becomes necessary to go through this compulsory acquisition procedure, is not this going to delay the actual time at which operations will start on the site?
What matters to the national economy and matters so far as Scotland is concerned, as the Government have said and as we said in Government, is to get sites into operation, subject of course to proper safeguards, as quickly as possible. My concern in relation to Hunterston, apart from speeding up to get things into operation, is how these procedures are to operate in these particular circum-

stances. I accept that this is a specific example which would not apply in another situation where there was an unwilling seller and a company willing to build on the site. Obviously, in those circumstances such expedited acquisition procedure would be helpful; but I question whether it would in the Hunterston situation. Would the Minister answer that point before leaving this amendment?

Mr. Millan: I do not know that I shall be happy to keep arguing for the rest of the day always from the general to the particular but in this case I am quite happy to do so because we appreciate that there could be a danger of slowing down development at Hunterston if the Government and the Hunterston Development Company were at cross-purposes. But we are not at cross-purposes, and I am happy to say the position is fully protected, the necessary work required to go on there is continuing and we have made our views about acquisition of the site clear to the company, so that the danger which the hon. Gentleman has in mind is not actually a real danger so far as Hunterston is concerned.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for trying to answer some of the points which I raised in debate, and in view of the fact that as we work our way through Clause 1 I am hopeful of getting more answers to points raised, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 8, after 'purpose', to insert:
'mentioned in subsection (2) below'.

The Chairman: With Amendment No. 3, we shall take the following amendments:
No. 7, in page 1, line 10, to leave out from 'above' to 'the' in line 11 and to insert:
'are confined to'.
No. 8, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'include in particular' and to insert:
'consist of'.
and Government Amendment No. 18.

Mr. Wilson: The intention of this amendment and Amendment No. 8 is to seek to define, if not to restrict, the


powers which will be available under the Bill to the Secretary of State. It is perhaps known that as part of the background to the Bill we are here seeking an opportunity of taking over a limited number of sites for the purpose of the construction or assembly of platforms, and the object could be restricted even further to a certain type of platform, namely the concrete Condeep platform.
One difficulty which must face many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—without wishing to make political points—is that the Government are seeking in the Bill to provide substantial powers for what in effect may be very limited purposes. An amendment has been proposed by the Government which may be construed partly, perhaps, as limiting the effects of some of the powers, but to my mind it does not meet the need for circumscribing to a greater extent the powers in subsections (1) and (2). Specific attention should be paid to the words "include in particular", which would suggest that there are other purposes or functions which could be fulfilled by the Bill, particularly in relation to subsection (1).
Any Government must be given credit for knowing what they intend to do, and for knowing the particular functions of the Bill they are seeking to put before the House. If that is so, they should have enumerated the various purposes referred to in subsection (2), presumably accepting that these are functions which they require in terms of the Bill, and they should accept that the legislation should be confined to these purposes.
Perhaps it is dangerous for Parliament to give a blank cheque to the executive by passing legislation which is insufficiently precise. The Government may say that they do not wish to accept some of the more general implications contained in the Bill, but one of the principles that one learns at law school is that it is not what might have been the intentions of Parliament or even of a Minister at the time that matters but what eventually emerges in the form of the Act, and that that is what judges in the courts will define.
Contained in the powers in subsections (1) and (2) there is so much latitude that any claim of ultra vires might be difficult to substantiate at a future time. It

is therefore simply our intention to restrict the operation of the Bill to the particular purposes isolated by the Secretary of State in sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), subject, of course, to any other amendments which may follow.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: I support the general reasoning behind the amendments. As the Bill is drafted, it goes unnecessarily wide. I raised the matter on Second Reading. The Bill applies to any land, not only coastal land, and to that land
… for any purpose relating to exploration for or exploitation of off shore petroleum.
As the Bill stands, that can take place anywhere. It is an extremely wide Bill, and anything which can be done to narrow its scope would be welcome. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said, it is not the intention of the Minister which counts in the end, but the wording of the Act. Further, if it is really intended to deal only with certain sites for building rigs, the Bill goes unnecessarily wide.
Government Amendment No. 18 is, I take it, designed to some extent to narrow the purposes of the Bill. But would it not make nonsense of subsection (2)? As I read it, subsection (2) would state "The purposes mentioned in this subsection include in particular the provision or use of …", but no purposes are mentioned other than those set out in (a), (b), (c) and (d). Therefore, surely technically subsection (2) would be nonsense. I welcome the Government's intention in Amendment No. 18, but I ask them to look again at the wording.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I welcome Government Amendment No. 18, which helps to meet some of the points made in the amendments. As I see it, it helps in the right direction in seeking to limit the purposes of the Bill in relation to sub section (2)(d). As far as I can see, it does not limit it in any sense in relation to the rest of the purposes in subsection (2)(a), (b) or (c). It still leaves in the words "include in particular".
As the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has said, by including the words "in particular" it is mentioning the specific, which means that any particular thing which the Government may think of later on could easily be included. The whole subsection in effect


ends up as a series of examples of how it might be used, and it in no sense puts any boundary on the extent of the purposes for which the Secretary of State can use his powers.
I would prefer something along the lines either of Amendment No. 3 or of our Amendment No. 7, which would confine the powers to stated purposes within the Bill. Then we would know where we stood, and when the Bill came to be applied in Scotland people would know whether the Government were acting within or without their powers. But unless we correct the wording now there will be no way of showing that powers which go beyond the spirit of the legislation have done so. We are grateful for Government Amendment No. 18, but it does not meet the full spirit either of Amendment No. 3 or of Amendment No. 7.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Smith): The purpose of Government Amendment No. 18 is to restrict the powers of the Secretary of State with regard to the expedited acquisition of land for infrastructure needed for oil-related developments. Power of expedited acquisition, referred to later in the Bill, would be available to the Secretary of State only in connection with infrastructure needed for categories of oil-related developments specified in subsection (2)(a)(b) and (c)—platform sites, pipelines and shore terminals, and so on. They would not be available for the general purposes in subsection (1). By the amendment, we are seeking to meet some of the criticism expressed on Second Reading.
The Government studied the contributions made by right hon. and hon. Members to see whether they could improve the Bill in the light of those comments, and Amendment No. 18 is an attempt to achieve an improvement which I hope will go some way towards meeting some of the feelings expressed on Second Reading without impeding the general purposes of the Bill.
The effect of Amendment No. 3 and Amendment No. 7 would be to restrict the purposes for which land may be acquired to those specified in Clause 1(2) —that is to say, the powers of compulsory purchase would be circumscribed to

subsection (2). We consider that such a restriction would be excessive.
We must consider the future of the oil industry as well as the present, and in future there may be occasions when the Government would wish to be able to facilitate oil-related operations by acquiring land and making it available for such purposes as services, public works and storage purposes for which there is no particular urgency for land acquisition. In such cases, the Secretary of State would proceed under subsection (1) because he would not need to proceed under subsection (2).
It is very much part of our approach that we must think of possible future conditions in the oil industry as well as of today's problems. That is the justification for the general nature of Clause 1. It is not unusual in compulsory purchase legislation for there to be such a general clause at the start of the Bill. General powers must always be a matter of judgment, and how far such a power should extend is for the Committee to decide. We believe, however, that it is necessary to give flexibility to meet requirements which may arise in future technology in the oil-related industries.
I can quite understand the feeling that some hon. Members have that Clause 1 is too widely drawn. I have given the Government's judgment. We must look to the future as well as the present. One of the problems is that if we tried to legislate too narrowly we could meet a situation in which we did not have powers from Parliament to deal with it. It would be regretted by all of us if that were to cause any delay in the advancement of the new industrial opportunities that North Sea oil gives us. It is a question of judgment.
I have taken note of the point raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) about the wording of Government Amendment No. 18, and I assure him that we will study it again in the light of his criticism.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbaim: The Under-Secretary of State's remarks confirm the fears held on this side of the Committee and specified by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). The Under-Secretary of State has said, in effect, that subsection (2) really means nothing, but that if it


means anything, it means that if the Government need it for any other purposes they will ignore it. If that is what the hon. Gentleman meant—

Mr. John Smith: It was not.

Mr. Fairbairn: If it was not, then I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's meaning. If that is so, why have subsection (2) at all? Why is it essential for the words "include in particular" to appear in the subsection? It has been suggested that we can deal with other matters as they arise. If that is what is meant, subsection (2) is a ruse to deceive us into imagining that there is some limitation.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I was interested to hear the Minister's explanation. It seems to confirm the view that the powers contained in subsection (2) are not sufficiently well drawn. It might have been better had the Minister inserted into the Bill the examples which he has suggested as being suitable for future development. If that had been done persons considering this measure in future would be aware of the intention of Parliament and of the rôle of the clause.
I regret that the explanation that the Minister has offered has been so unsatisfactory. It goes to confirm my fear that the clause is drawn far too widely. I suggest that if it is necessary to obtain new powers the time to obtain them will be as they arise.
We are being asked to give a blank cheque. I regret that the Minister has not given a reply which would have enabled me to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As one who made representations, I thank the Minister for the changes that have been made. They seem to be changes in the right direction. This is the right stage at which to draw certain conclusions.
It is clear from Drumbuie that had a certain body not been extremely persistent and sustained in its scepticism of the whole proposition—I refer to the National Trust—we would not now be seeing alternative arrangements made on the Argyll coast. I link that example with what the Government are doing in general. I ask the Government to be extremely searching of all the propositions that are

put forward, particularly those put forward in a hurry by contractors.
Drumbuie has revealed that Mowlems and Taylor Woodrow could throughout have adopted alternative systems if that had suited their commercial convenience. That is one lesson that must be learnt.
Another relevant matter concerns Dalmeny. Had there not been a considerable fuss made by certain citizens of South Queensferry in particular it is clear that different plans would have been adopted for the terminal at Hound Point. Perhaps the excellent landscaping that is now taking place—I give every credit to BP—would not have taken place had not the original series of searching questions been asked. I hope that I am right in thanking the Government for what they have done in the clause.

Mr. John Smith: I had a suspicion that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) would not find my explanation satisfactory in view of his previous statements. The difficulty which I experience is the problem of foreseeing the future shape of our requirements for the North Sea oil industry. In the short time that I have been in the House the same argument has always been raised when compulsory acquisition has been put forward. Those who criticise the Government's drafting—I have done my fair share of criticising in the past—are met with a reply roughly on the lines of the reply that I have given. Those who are criticising then say, "If and when the future requirements become clear you can return to Parliament." As the hon. Member for Dundee, East knows, it is not so easy to return to Parliament.
The Government are also criticised from time to time by the legal profession for introducing what it describes as hotch-potch legislation. It is said that the Government should introduce comprehensive legislation instead of little bits of Acts as and when circumstances demand. This must remain a matter of judgment. We must take powers which will allow us to have some control over the widest aspects of the North Sea oil
4.45 p.m.
The distinction between Clauses 1 and 2, which I respectfully draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), is that in Clause 1(1) the Secretary of State has


fairly wide powers but he cannot for any of the powers which are not included in subsection (2) use the expedited procedure. Clause 2 is more narrowly drafted because it is in that respect that the expedited procedure is required.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dundee, East feels that he must continue to press his amendment. We had felt that the Government had taken account of earlier criticisms in putting forward Amendment No. 18. We considered the matter carefully to ascertain how we could meet the criticism that has been expressed. We put forward our amendment on that basis.
This is a matter of judgment in that the Committee must decide whether the amendment meets the criticism that has been expressed. I hope that the Committee will be reasonably sympathetic and feel that the Government have gone half way to meet its wishes.

Mr. Dalyell: I should like confirmation that in the opinion of a legal Minister there is sufficient scope for the Government of the day to put searching questions to contractors.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We shall await with interest the Minister's reply to the question of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). It is a relevant matter related to the techniques employed. It begs the question of who is to judge the techniques employed.
I accept that the Government have tried to some extent to meet the criticism that has been expressed. I believe that the amendment demonstrates the difficulties that arise when we are asked to consider a Bill with such wide powers. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), and I find it difficult to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends. For example, if Amendment No. 4 were successful the character of the clause would be changed. In future amendments we are seeking to limit the powers of the Bill. I accept the point made by the Minister that we do not want to be so exclusive that some other development that is closely related to the exploration and exploitation will be found not to be covered by the Bill. I accept that if the Bill is too confined and restrictive we shall create difficulties when we come to use the Bill to carry out useful

operations in future. We are faced with a difficult decision.
The next amendment which we shall consider, Amendment No. 4, and subsequent amendments relating to the clause, could very much limit the Government's powers. I have sympathy with the hon. Member for Dundee, East, but if he chooses to press the amendment to a Division I shall have to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to wait until they hear the Government's reply to Amendment No. 4 and subsequent amendments before coming to a conclusion. Perhaps an appropriate time to consider the position will be on the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill". We shall then be able to assess what progress we have made on the clause and consider the kind of clause which is before us. We can then decide whether it is necessary to oppose the proposition that the Government are putting forward.
If we consider these matters in isolation we may defeat some of the good purposes of the Bill. If we consider them as a whole we are much more likely to come to a proper conclusion. I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends not to vote on the amendment if a Division is called but to reserve their position until we see the clause as a whole after we have considered subsequent amendments which bear on the same point.

Mr. Grimond: Will the hon. Gentleman give me the legal answer to the point which arises on Clause 1(2)(d)? If we leave that part of the clause unamended —perhaps it is the Government's intention to amend it—we shall let in everything that the Minister intends to take out.

Mr. John Smith: Government Amendment No. 18 seeks to leave out "subsection (1) above". It seeks to insert "this subsection".

Mr. Dalyell: I put a specific, and what I believe to be a fairly tight, question as to whether in the opinion of the legal Minister there are sufficient grounds for a Government to probe firms as to their intentions and as to alternatives. Will my hon. Friend answer my question?

Mr. John Smith: I was reluctant to rise to reply as the phrase "legal Minister" was not one to which I felt immediately obliged to respond. I have enough responsibilities on Department of Energy


matters without usurping the functions of the Law Officers. With great respect to by hon. Friend I am not so sure that his question is so specific. His concern is that the Government should take a close interest in the contractors, and the Government, as the owners of the land, in cases where they leased it to contractors, would have certain authority arising from their position as owners and lessees. My hon. Friend has expressed some concern, and I am sure that concern will be borne in mind in future legislation.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I make a point which may not require an answer. There is a curious confusion in the House whenever we seek to give the people of Scotland something they can control. Certain parties join together to prevent the people of Scotland exerting that control over land.
If my hon. Friend the Minister is looking at the restrictions and the legal points, will he also consider the question of assertions by private industry at committees of inquiry—including such firms as Mowlems and Taylor Woodrow—that there is no other site they can possibly use, yet when they were refused Drumbuie they went somewhere else. When we consider the powers of the Government we might also examine threats by private industry.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: I had not intended to speak until I heard the intervention by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). Until then I thought we were having a constructive and useful exchange of views on the clause. The point that he raised and that was raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is well worth considering—that in these matters the Government, like the ordinary member of the public, can all too often be bamboozled by the experts and the commercial interests which want to go to a particular area not necessarily for the benefit of that area, the environment or the living standards of the people there, but because it would be the most profitable. Yet, with a little consideration and foresight those interests could consider other areas.
I feel that we are still back in the situation where the clause read
any land in Scotland for any purpose relating to exploration for or exploitation of off-shore petroleum.

Those words could mean that almost anything in Scotland could, by some remote tinge of reasoning, be taken.
If an American oil company wanted to build its offices in Aberdeen could the Secretary of State take over the whole of Union Street and hand it over to the oil company? There are all sorts of other aspects. The wording is far too wide, and for the Minister to say that the Government must look to the future, and to say it in that low key way that he has, does not deceive us. If the Government want further powers they have a clear opportunity of coming to the House and asking for them.

Mr. John Smith: It is unusual to be accused of being reasonable and deceptive at the same time. It would be a curious American company that wanted the whole of Union Street in Aberdeen for the building of an office. We have to look at this matter with common sense. I have explained that the width of the clause is related to the difficulty of predicting the future.
There is perhaps a lot less reluctance on the Government side to seeing land in public ownership than there is on the Opposition benches, whichever party the objections may come from. That is a matter of political philosophy which we do not want to go into too deeply today since we must make some reasonable progress with the Bill. I think that I have given explanations which justify the Government's position. I hope that hon. Members will consider withdrawing the amendment since the Government have gone at least 50 per cent. of the way to meet their objection.

Mr. Fairbairn: I am still confused by the answer the Minister gave to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). If the Government amendment were to be accepted, surely the clause would make no sense, because it would read
The purposes mentioned in this subsection include in particular the provision or use of.
That does not relate it to anything, certainly not subsection (1) and—

Mr. Millan: The hon. and learned Member is looking at the wrong amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

Question accordingly negatived.

The Committee divided: Ayes 18, Noes 193.

Division No. 24.
AYES
[4.56 p.m.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Pardoe, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Beith, A. J.
Penhaligon, David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E.)


Crawford, Douglas
Reid, George
Winterton, Nicholas


Freud, Clement
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)



Goodhart, Philip
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Mr. Douglas Henderson and


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Thompson, George
Mr. Andrew Welsh


MacCormick, Iain






NOES


Allaun, Frank
George, Bruce
Ovenden, John


Anderson, Donald
Gilbert, Dr John
Park, George


Archer, Peter
Ginsburg, David
Parry, Robert


Armstrong, Ernest
Golding, John
Pavitt, Laurie


Ashton, Joe
Gould, Bryan
Pendry, Tom


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Gourlay, Harry
Perry, Ernest


Atkinson, Norman
Graham, Ted
Prescott, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Price, William (Rugby)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood)
Grant, John (Islington C.)
Radice, Giles


Bates, Alf
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hamling, William
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hardy, Peter
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Boardman, H.
Harper, Joseph
Rodgers George (Chorley)


Booth, Albert
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Rodgers, William (Teesside)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hatton, Frank
Rooker, J. W.


Bradley, Tom
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Roper, John


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Heffer, Eric S.
Rose, Paul B.


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow Pr.)
Hooley, Frank
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)


Buchan, Norman
Horam, John
Rowlands, Ted


Buchanan, Richard
Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)
Sandelson, Neville


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Haringey)
Huckfield, Leslie
Sedgemore, B.


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Selby, Harry


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N.)
Short, Rt Hon Edward (Newcastle C)


Carter, Ray
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Sillars, James


Cartwright, John
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Silverman, Julius


Clemitson, I. M.
Jenkins, Hugh (Wandsworth)
Skinner, Dennis


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S.)
John, Brynmor
Small, William


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, James (Kingston, W.)
Smith, John (N. Lanarkshire)


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Snape, Peter


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Spearing, Nigel


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Spriggs, Leslie


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Kaufman, Gerald
Stallard, A. W.


Corbett, Robin
Kelley, Richard
Stewart, Rt Hn Michael (H'smith, F)


Cox, Thomas (Wands, Toot)
Kerr, Russell
Stoddart, David


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow M.)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Stott, Roger


Cryer, Bob
Kinnock, Neil
Strang, Gavin


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh.)
Lamond, James
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Dalyell, Tam
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Davidson, Arthur
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N.)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Tierney, Sydney


Deakins, Eric
Loyden, Eddie
Tinn, James


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Luard, Evan
Tomlinson, John


Delargy, Hugh
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Torney, Tom


Dempsey, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Tuck, Raphael


Doig, Peter
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Urwin, T. W.


Dormand, Jack
McCartney, Hugh
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Duffy, A. E. P.
McElhone, Frank
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V.)


Dunn, James A.
Mackintosh, John P.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C.)
Ward, Michael


Edge, Geoffrey
Madden, Max
Wellbeloved, James


Edwards, Robert (Wolv. S.E.)
Magee, Bryan
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mahon, Simon
White, James (Glasgow P)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Whitehead, Phillip


English, Michael
Marks, Ken
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Evans, loan L. (Aberdare)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Evans, John (Newton)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester)
Wilson, William (Coventry S.E.)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Meacher, Michael
Woodall, Alec


Flannery, Martin
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Woof, Robert


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mendelson, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mikardo, Ian
Young, David (Bolton E.)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Millan, Bruce



Ford, Ben T.
Miller, Dr M. (E. Kilbride)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Forrester, John
Murray, Ronald King
Miss Betty Boothroyd and


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Newens, Stanley
Mr. James Hamilton.


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
O'Halloran, Michael

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'exploitation' and insert 'extraction'.

The Chairman: With this Amendment we shall take the following amendments:
No. 10, in page 1, line 14, leave out 'exploitation' and insert 'extraction'.
No. 11, in page 1, line 15, at end insert
'save that such exploitation shall not extend to oil refining'.
Government Amendment No. 151, and Amendment No. 106, in Clause 19 page 13, line 3, leave out 'exploitation' and insert 'extraction'.

Mr. Fletcher: The amendment again touches the very principle of the Bill. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy talked about the wide powers necessary in the Bill. In describing those wide powers, the Government are using unnecessarily wide words. If I did not know the hon. Member better, I would accuse him of being a "wide" boy.
The word "exploitation" covers a multitude of operations, from oil refining to the largest kind of petrochemical complex. If it remains in the clause, it will extend the powers of the Bill to a variety of onshore activities covering the whole spectrum of oil-related processing and manufacturing activities. Those activities were never envisaged when these measures were first formulated by the Government and those involved in offshore operations.
The use of the word gives the Secretary of State powers outside the requirement to expedite the extraction of North Sea oil, and brings the scope of the Bill into a wider area of industrial planning and operation than is necessary for oil extraction and the development of offshore petroleum. It conjures up the possibility of using the Bill to reproduce in Shetland or somewhere in the North of Scotland a petrochemical complex similar to that at Grangemouth.
It is the question of the scope of the Government's powers and the way in which they propose to use the powers they seek in the Bill that gives cause for concern. The Opposition do not quarrel about the need to expedite the offshore activities, but public confidence is vital, and the over-extension of the limited powers necessary to bring North

Sea oil ashore could greatly harm confidence in the Government's intentions in introducing the Bill. Ministers should consider our amendment seriously. They should use terminology that is easily understood, easily denned, and capable of carrying out the purposes for which we were led to believe the Bill was intended.

[Mr. RICHARD CRAWSHAW in the Chair.]

Mr. Millan: We welcome the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) on what I think is his first appearance on the Front Bench, and we congratulate him. I hope that we shall be able to sustain these congratulations to a late hour tonight, when we finish the Committee stage.
If the Bill were drafted in such a way as to import into the clause all the processes that the hon. Gentleman has described, it would go well beyond what is intended. I am advised that it does not go anything like as far as the hon. Gentleman fears. On the other hand, it may go rather further than the Government had intended. But to clarify the matter we have tabled Amendment No. 151, which makes clear that there is nothing in the clause which takes the clause into the realms of refining, and, a fortiori, into the realms of petrochemical activities and the rest. I hope that that will be an assurance to the hon. Gentleman and to the Committee generally that land would not be acquired for refineries under the clause. The amendment makes that absolutely clear.
This will be some reassurance to Shetland County Council, which has certain apprehensions about refinery development which I was able to assure the council were unnecessary in terms of the Bill. When it sees the wording of Amendment No. 151 I hope the position will be absolutely clear. The wording of Amendment No. 151 includes the qualifying phrase:
except so far as is necessary for its onward despatch".
I should explain what that means in case any undue significance is attached to it. It might mean, for example, the stabilisation of the crude oil by removing some of the associated gas, reducing the pressure, and removing water from the crude. The extent to which these functions must be undertaken at the shore


terminal will depend upon what processes have already been undertaken at the platform, where there is likely to have been a certain amount of preliminary treatment, and the method by which the crude oil or gas is to be transmitted forward from the terminal. Where the crude oil is to be transmitted onward by pipeline, for example, pressure may be maintained, and where it is to be loaded on to a tanker it must generally be depressurised. It is clear from these examples that what is in mind here are basically limited operations which will be necessary for the safe and effective handling of the crude oil or gas and will not involve anything like refining or associated activities. Therefore, under Amendment No. 151 refineries are exclusively excluded from Clause 1.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I accept what the Minister has said, but could he not give a little more detail about the scale of operation which would be required? It has been suggested in some quarters that that scale would be considerable. Can he give any detailed description of what this process—that is, an exceptional process— might entail?

Mr. Millan: It is perhaps a little difficult for me to do that, partly because I am dealing with technical matters on which I would not like to pretend a competency to the Committee which I do not possess. But it would vary from one operation to another depending on the scale at which the crude oil was being landed at any particular point.
We are dealing here with very limited operations which do not compare in the least degree with what is understood as refining operations. It is basically a separation and stabilisation process of a limited degree. I am perfectly happy to write to the right hon. Lady before Report stage, perhaps explaining in more detail what might be involved in terms of work and the number of people employed, and I would be happy to give that information to other hon. Members if they so wish.
The qualifying phrase in the Government's amendment is not intended in any way to let in by the side door what we are appearing to be taking out by the rest of the amendment. It is simply necessary to allow certain essential processes to take place, partly for safety reasons.

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation of the amendment, but I am a little surprised that he should feel unable to speak on technical matters and be so diffident about it, because that feeling is not shared by many of his colleagues who find it easy to speak on these matters even though they have an equal lack of knowledge. [Interruption.] I was not referring to the present company on the Government Front Bench.
5.15 p.m.
Could the Minister explain a little further in relation to gas developments the terminology he is using here. At St. Fergus there is to be a gas plant which will take gas ashore from the Frigg field. There are now proposals in the area for an ammonia plant which would use gas as its basis. Can the Minister say whether his amendment would exclude a possible ammonia plant and related developments from the term of the Bill?

Sir John Gilmour: I was interested to hear the Minister mention the fears of Orkney and Shetland, particularly Shetland. I took part in the deliberations on the Zetland County Council Bill, and one of the reasons for which the area around Sullom Voe was delineated was that there might be provision for oil refineries. It was for that reason that some of us engaged in the Committee stage of that Bill thought that it would be better to restrict the area which could be compul-sorily purchased around Sullom Voe, so as not to allow the oil refineries to be sited there.
One query which emerges from Amendment No. 151 is that it includes the phrase
shall not include the refining of crude petroleum, except so far as",
which gives the inference that there is to be some refining. I thought the Minister said that he wanted treatment to be applied to the petroleum in the interests of safety and to get it posted to the next port of call where it was to be dealt with. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), who moved Amendment No. 4, said that we want to take out the word "exploitation" and provide for necessary treatment in the interests of safety, rather than have the Government amendment which gives the idea that it might be possible to have refining in certain circumstances. Will


the Minister look at what he is seeking to do—in good faith, I accept—and consider whether it might not be done more simply, in a slightly different way.

Mr. Grimond: I did not intend to take part in the discussion on this matter but since the situation of refineries in Orkney and Shetland has been mentioned I should like to put forward my views of the present position. The Minister correctly stated what are the virtual certainties of the case. It is virtually certain, or highly likely, that some treatment will have to be given to crude brought ashore on Flotta in Orkney and Sullom Voe in Shetland to enable it to be taken by tanker or other means. I do not say that this is certain, but it is highly likely.
With regard to the question of a refinery, perhaps the Minister will confirm that the Bill does not affect measures already covering Shetland and Orkney, and leaves them exactly as they were. I hope that the Minister will say that the position of these measures in relation to refineries is not altered vis-à-vis Orkney or Shetland in any way.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I unreservedly welcome the spirit of Government Amendment No. 151 because it meets the particular situation and fulfils an undertaking which the hon. Gentleman has given outside the House of Commons.
However, I share the doubts of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) as to whether it puts it as explicitly and clearly as it might, and, therefore, I ask the Minister to look at it again. It seems to me that unscrupulous people could legally drive a coach and horses through it, but I hope that would not happen. I ask the Minister to consider the matter further and to tighten it up if necessary in order to get the spirit of the proposal more fairly reflected than the letter.
However, my main point at present is that the Minister has not dealt with the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher). We feel that by changing the word "exploitation" for "extraction" we perhaps provide a much better way of achieving the restriction in the purposes for which the Bill can be used. The

word "exploitation" is extremely wide. It could be used in relation to almost any form of economic activity concerned with the handling of oil through to the refinery stage. We have dealt with the refinery point and are grateful to the Government. However, there are still many other remaining purposes connected with oil. The amendment would confine the Bill to the truly necessary purposes. No one has any doubts about the need for exploration. We all realise that it is to the advantage of this country to expedite the process of exploration.
There are further activities, such as the provision of platforms, shore installations, pipelines and so on, which might be better covered by using the word "extraction". I would like the Minister to explain his objections to the use of this word. There is some concern in Scotland about the use of the word "exploitation". Perhaps the Minister can tell us that we have suggested the right word, or if not, perhaps he can tell us why not.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I wish to express some support for the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) in his plea for the use of the word "extraction" rather than "exploitation". I await any explanation which may be given by the Minister. I also express thanks for Government Amendment No. 151. Subject to satisfactory assurances being given to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) we would be prepared to withdraw our amendment and accept Government Amendment No. 151.

Mr. Millan: To deal with the point about the ammonia plant raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson), I can say that that would be excluded by the Bill as drafted. It certainly would be excluded if and when the Government amendment is accepted. The trouble about using the word "extraction" instead of "exploitation" is that it is nowhere near what we are trying to do. It would be quite inconsistent with paragraphs (2)(b) and (c) which are concerned not just with extraction but with the landing of the oil, with pipelines, shore terminals and the rest. The use of the word "extraction" rather than "exploitation", if it means anything at


all, would have absolutely no effect on the Bill. It would produce a clause which would be internally inconsistent. We would therefore have the worst of all worlds.
I have given a good deal of thought to the drafting of this clause generally. Without the Government amendment the Bill is by no means absolutely clear. Our amendment is tabled so as to clarify the issue beyond doubt, as far as that is possible. The qualifying phrase in our amendment is necessary, I am advised, because otherwise we would simply cut out developments which everyone would agree were essential. I am willing to look at this again. If there is a neater or clearer way of achieving the Government's intention I will see that it is considered.
There is a good deal of advantage to be gained by putting the Government amendment in as a separate subsection, because it does not come in by implication or as some kind of qualifying phrase. It is in explicit terms. I feel that we have got the wording right, and I hope that the Committee will be willing to rest on that.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I am grateful for that explanation and am glad that the Minister of State is willing to consider the terminology used. We feel that the word "extraction", with perhaps something added to it, might be more relevant to this clause and to what is being aimed at. In view of the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 9, at end insert:
'from the United Kingdom continental shelf'.

The Temporary Chairman: With this we can also discuss Amendment No. 34, in Clause 3, page 3, line 37, leave out 'surrounding Scotland'; Amendment No. 105, in Clause 19, page 12, line 12, at end insert:
'"Continental shelf" has the same meaning as in the Continental Shelf Act 1964';
and Amendment No. 144, in Clause 19, page 12, line 35, at end insert:
'within sea areas allotted to Britain for oil exploitation'.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As drafted, this Bill can be used for purposes of offshore oil exploration or exploitation wherever that occurs in the world. Theoretically, if we wanted to use oil produced from a Japanese offshore site it could come to this country and be dealt with by the Government under this measure. I accept that that is a far-fetched example. What we are seeking to do is to ensure that the Bill applies to the exploration and exploitation of offshore oil produced off the coasts of the United Kingdom. The amendment is to make it clear that the Bill refers to oil produced from the United Kingdom Continental Shelf.
Amendment No. 34 relates to the designated sea areas in Clause 3. This is by way of being a probing amendment into the legal validity of the phrase "the sea surrounding Scotland". I would be interested to know whether there is legal precedent for that phrase or whether there is any possibility of disputes arising because of it.
Might there not be cases, particularly in the Solway Firth area, in the Celtic Sea, in St. George's Channel or even in the Minches, when it might be necessary for a rig or platform built in the Clyde to be completed in waters which are not off the coast of Scotland? I have no strong feelings on this but I would welcome the Government's views.
Are we wise to make this legislation apply only to Scotland? Oil is already being sought in the Celtic Sea, off the coast of England, Wales and Ireland. If we want to see such developments going on rapidly, might it not be necessary to introduce a similar Bill for these parts of the United Kingdom? Since a company might want to complete the assembly of a rig or a platform in waters not surrounding Scotland, might not the lack of legislation covering the rest of the United Kingdom prove a hindrance? I do not think that we shall vote on that aspect, but, as we are considering geographical matters which are not wholly connected with the amendment, I hope that the Government will help us by giving us their thinking on that matter.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: I have an amendment on the Notice Paper with exactly the same purpose as Amendment No. 5; that is to say, to limit the application


of Clause 1 to offshore petroleum around Britain. I can see that there are arguments against it. There is every possible advantage to Scotland in producing works for the exploitation of petroleum elsewhere, but we are taking wide powers over all land in Scotland, and the people of Scotland would be surprised if the powers were used not for their benefit but for the benefit of a foreign operation.
We are told that one reason for pressing on with the Bill is that it will make a significant contribution to our balance of payments. I should like to think that the Bill will be used primarily for the purpose of exploiting petroleum in and around our own seas. I sympathise with the view that the Bill should be a United Kingdom Bill, and I find the Government's arguments against it unconvincing. The Government have deliberately drawn the Bill in such a way that it applies to every conceivable form of activity, not just to rig-building sites. It is just as likely that those activities might be carried on on the Humber or the Tyne as on the Forth or the Tay.

Mr. John Smith: The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) have raised wide questions about the application of the Bill. I do not know how far it will be possible for us to have a long debate on this subject because it is outwith the terms of the Bill, the House having given a Second Reading to a Bill which is confined to Scotland.
The only conceivable use for the Bill in the immediate future is in relation to Scotland because the deep waters which are required are unique in the United Kingdom to Scotland.
Associated with Amendment No. 5 is Amendment No. 105, which amends the definition clause and defines the Continental Shelf as having the meaning given to it in the Continental Shelf Act 1964, but the Continental Shelf is not defined in the Continental Shelf Act 1964. That is not a point of great substance and I do not use it against the hon. Gentleman, but his argument takes us in a circle.
The major argument is whether we should circumscribe the activities which can be carried out under the Bill to off-

shore petroleum from United Kingdom waters. We must go back to the purpose for which the sites are being made available, which is particularly for the construction of concrete platforms. The purpose is to facilitate the exploitation of United Kingdom oil resources, but it is behind our thinking that British-based industry will benefit from the opportunity to get a secure foothold in the lucrative international oil market. The exploitation of offshore oil will develop not only in United Kingdom waters but around the world. Firms which are given access to sites under the Bill may wish to tender for orders in, for example, the Norwegian sector of the North Sea. McAlpine is building at Ardyne a concrete treatment platform for the Frigg gas field. It would be undesirable to prevent British firms which were given sites under the terms of the Bill from tendering for orders from abroad.
The provision of offshore supply equipment is not restricted to the United Kingdom sector only. It would be difficult to say "No" to a contractor who had several contracts but at the time of the site acquisition had only a foreign contract.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he moved the amendment, and I hope that the reasons I have given are sufficiently compelling to make him reconsider whether he should proceed with it.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I entirely accept what the Minister said about firms which are building platforms in Scotland being given the opportunity to tender and build platforms for offshore drilling elsewhere than in Scottish waters. I am more concerned about the question—which he did not answer—of the landing of oil from other fields. Suppose a tanker containing offshore oil from the China Sea came to these shores. Could the procedures be used by a landing terminal in Scotland?

Mr. John Smith: I am sorry that I did not reply to that question. Neither did I reply to the hon. Gentleman's comments on Amendment No. 34, but I will do so now.
In reply to the question which the hon. Gentleman has just asked, that is a matter which we should have to keep under constant review. Any installation that wanted to take in Norwegian oil, for


example, would have to get planning permission in the first instance, and the matter could be evaluated at that stage. It is not possible to say that we want to land oil only from the British sector. As Britain and Norway operate on different sides of the median line, Norwegian gas will be coming ashore, in any event from the Frigg field. We shall keep this matter under review and there will be the safeguard of planning permission.
The hon. Gentleman in speaking to Amendment No. 34 raised the question of definition. There is ample precedent for the definition in the Fishery Limits Act 1964. The hon. Gentleman also asked about rigs which are completed elsewhere. That is a possibility. Different stages of fabrication might be done at different places. Whether it is necessary to have a compulsory purchase order in England to facilitate the last stage of construction is another question. We hope that a great deal of the work can be done in Scotland but, if necessary, some will have to be done in Teesside or elsewhere. We have already said that the Government's view is that the Bill is limited to Scotland.

Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: The Minister mentioned the Continental Shelf Act, which derived from the treaty, which in turn derived from the Geneva Convention of 1954. It is a pity that we did not in those days realise what might lie under our seas. We agreed to a median line between ourselves and Norway, but if we were to ask geologists who have studied the sea bed in that area, they would probably say that the amendment should read "That portion of the Continental Shelf that we did not concede gratuitously to Norway."

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for those assurances, and I accept his explanations. In some of his explanations he emphasised the precise difficulties I mentioned. For example, he said that one reason for restricting the Bill to Scotland was the suitability of the deep-water areas As the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said, it is extraordinary how technology apparently changes as the availability of sites changes. Whenever that happens, firms are prepared to adapt their technology. Therefore, although deep water is an asset, it is obvious that technology can overcome the difficulties at a site

where deep water is not available. This weakens the arguments about the importance of deep water and any necessity for the Bill to apply only to Scotland because of the availability of deep water there. It is quite possible that some of the platforms could be built in much shallower water.
The Minister said that he hopes to see landings of oil in Scotland. This begs the question in terms of the odd case which may arise where oil is found in waters surrounding Scotland which for one reason or another could be landed by pipeline elsewhere in the United Kingdom. In that case the purpose of the Bill is to some extent lost. This underlines the point that it might have been more sensible had the Bill embraced the whole of the United Kingdom rather than taking in Scotland only. I do not intend to pursue the amendment any further, but I am grateful for the assurances we have been given.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to the comments made by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve), I should like to inform the Committee that it appears to be creeping into myth that in the early 1960s we should have foreseen all sorts of things—for example, median lines. The Committee stage of the Continental Shelf Bill in 1964 was the first Committee stage in which I participated, and I can inform the Committee that questions of this nature were asked. The answer we were given was that we were dealing not with oil but with an extension of the Dutch natural gas field. What is obvious to us now was not quite so obvious in earlier years. Hindsight is a marvellous property, but technical opinions in earlier days were different from what we now conceive to be the truth.

Amendment negatived.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: I beg to move Amendment No. 135, in Clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert ' subject to planning permission having already been granted.'.

The Temporary Chairman: With this amendment, I hope it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 9, at end insert:
'(2) Only land for which planning permission for development has already been granted may be so acquired'.


Amendment No. 30, in page 2, line 26, at end add:
'(7) No operations shall take place on land acquired under this Act unless planning consent for such operations shall first have been granted'.
Amendment No. 95, in Clause 11, page 9, line 34, at end insert:
'and only land for which planning permission for development has already been granted may be so appropriated'.
and new Clause 3, "Saving for local planning policies".

Mr. Grimond: A great deal of attention was paid on Second Reading to the point with which Amendment No. 135 seeks to deal. It is agreed on all sides of the Committee that this is one of the most fundamental points in the Bill. The point relates to the fact that nothing in the Bill should exclude the need for planning permission. The Minister of State, Scottish Office said on Second Reading:
I should like to clear up the matter quickly. The fact is that the acquisition will not take place until planning permission has been granted
Later in the debate the Under-Secretary of State for Energy said:
Let me make it crystal clear that the Government have no intention of seeking to bring into public ownership through the compulsory acquisition powers in the Bill any site for which planning permission has not been granted. Planning permission will be the sine qua non for the operation of the Bill."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 1227.]
In view of that statement, I take it that the Government will this afternoon give some words of encouragement to me and to others who are interested in this matter. We are concerned at what is in the Bill rather than with Government promises. We have an obligation to make this Bill as simple and as clear as possible. I certainly do not think that it is clear to a layman who reads the Bill that all these provisions are subject to planning permission. Many people will take the view that we are giving compulsory power to the Government under an expedited procedure by which they can override planning powers. But that is not the case. Therefore, I am a little surprised that the Government have not tabled an amendment on this important point.
I have also tabled new Clause 3, which deals explicitly with the powers of the Secretary of State in authorising or undertaking works when initially he was to be concerned primarily with the acquisition of land. It seems abundantly clear that planning permission has to be obtained before any compulsory purchase can be carried out and also before the expedited procedure can be brought into effect where appropriate.
Planning permission depends on the elaborate plans which local authorities have prepared. I hope and believe that the Government have no intention in a general way to override the plans approved by local authorities and by the Secretary of State. At present the Minister can call in planning applications. It may be said that in some ways this would enable him to override the protection of planning permission as envisaged by the Government spokesmen in their statements on Second Reading. Therefore, we must take it that the Government do not intend to use their powers of calling in planning procedures to get round anything which was read on Second Reading.
I should like to call attention to a further statement made by the Secretary of State for Energy in column 1228 in dealing with the position of the Crown as a developer. He said that the Bill basically dealt with developments by private developers and went on to say:
If the Crown takes over the land and leases it to a contractor, as is the Government's intention, that contractor as the developer, will require planning permission. Only in the highly unusual and unlikely situation of the Crown going into the construction platform business would the problem raised by the hon. Gentleman arise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 1228.]
New Clause 3 is aimed at that "unlikely situation". I hope that I shall be given the assurance that the Government do not intend to go into that business and that they can accept the spirit of new Clause 3, if not its wording.
It is a grave shortcoming that at present planning procedures do not extend to the sea. I have raised this matter on previous occasions, and it is a pity that we have never been able to tackle this


point. I believe it is clear that the Government do not intend to override planning procedures, but I should like this matter to be written into the Bill in simple terms. I can see no objection to this course.
I come finally to the specific case of Shetland and Orkney. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that nothing in the Bill is intended to override the Orkney or Zetland County Council Act. I trust that he will be able to confirm that it is not intended to interfere with the planned developments at Sullom Voe. These developments are now going ahead under the Shetland legislation, which took a long time to get through this House. It would be disturbing both for the local authority and for the companies concerned if, having come to agreement between themselves, there were any suspicion that they would have to reopen the whole matter because the Secretary of State was stepping in.
Therefore, in addition to the general assurances which were given on Second Reading, I should like to see that assurance written into the Bill. I trust that the Minister will be able to say something about the purpose of new Clause 3 and about the Government's intentions towards developments in Sullom Voe in connection with the Shetland legislation.

Mr. Millan: I think it will help the Committee if I intervene now, because we might avoid a number of questions that hon. Members will otherwise raise.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) referred to the position regarding Orkney and Shetland. I should like to put on record the assurances that I have already given to representatives of Shetland County Council who came to see me.
It is not true that the Bill does not override the Shetland and Orkney Act because, in the nature of things, general legislation of this kind, when it is inconsistent with local legislation, overrides that local legislation. I was asked by the Shetland County Council—the Orkney County Council may take the same view —whether it could be completely excluded from the Bill. I said that that would be completely unprecedented and quite objectionable in principle. However, on the practicalities of the situation. I gave

an assurance, which I am happy to repeat, that the Government do not intend to use the powers in the Bill to interfere in sites and developments where at present satisfactory arrangements have been worked out, particularly on the basis of legislation taken by the authorities concerned. Therefore, the Government have no intention of interfering in the Sullom Voe developments in Shetland or the developments in Orkney arising from the Orkney legislation. I put that in specific terms.
One point that confuses many people concerns the call-in procedure. It is not true that the call-in procedure that the Secretary of State can use in a number of different areas overrides the normal planning procedures. It is a particular procedure, but it does not override normal planning procedures, rights of objection, and so on. For example, although the Secretary of State called in the Portkil application on the Clyde for oil production platform construction, that has now gone to a public inquiry that has recently opened.
I now turn to the main point about this series of amendments. On Second Reading I made it clear on numerous occasions, but perhaps largely unavail-ingly, that the planning procedures are not affected by the Bill. If they had been affected, it would have been necessary to write something into the Bill. Nevertheless, there has been considerable apprehension about this matter which I want to set at rest.
The statutory position is that, since the Bill says nothing about planning, all the provisions of the planning Act remain effective. However, there is a fear that the Crown might acquire land and undertake development, thereby avoiding the constraints of the planning Act by virtue of Crown exemption. These fears are also groundless. Developments of the kind with which the Bill is concerned will be undertaken by private developers in normal circumstances, and normal planning permissions will be needed. If Crown development of Crown land were to take place, the practice, which has been the practice of successive Governments, would be continued of applying procedures similar to those applying to normal planning applications. Therefore, the position would be protected.
I recognise that it would help the Committee generally and people outside who


are interested in the matter if there were something in the Bill to that effect. I should have been happy to produce such an amendment today, but, because in a sense it is unnecessary, it is a difficult amendment to draft. We are finding considerable difficulty in getting the drafting absolutely right for what we intend for this stage of the Bill. However, I give a commitment that we will draft a suitable amendment before Report. I should be happy, if we have an interval, as seems likely now, between now and Report, to allow the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, the Leader of the Scottish National Party the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and those of my hon. Friends who are interested to have a sight of the amendment when we put it down with a note explaining why we are putting it down in the terms in which it will be drafted. I should like to remove the difficulty and apprehension which may be felt by hon. Members.
I hope that with that assurance we shall not need to pursue this matter and that the Committee will be willing to wait until the Government have tabled their amendment. Obviously, if it is unsatisfactory or if hon. Members think that we have got the wording wrong—it is a very difficult drafting matter—they will be free on Report or in another place to suggest what they feel should be the appropriate wording.
I assure the Committee that we shall table an amendment before Report. I hope that, with that assurance, and as the rights of subsequent discussion are in no way prejudiced, we can pass reasonably quickly from this series of amendments.

Mr. Rifkind: I think that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will be grateful to the Minister for the assurance that he has given. It will certainly enable me to make my remarks much briefer.
It is clear that the revelation on Second Reading that the Government did not intend to exercise these powers, except if planning permission had been granted, came as a great surprise to hon. Members not only on this side but on the Government side, as I am sure the hon. Member

for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) will confirm.
The Minister has made an important concession. I should like to place on record our reason for seeing such an amendment put into the Bill. It does not arise from any uncharitable view about the Government's integrity, but, without such an amendment, two difficult problems could arise.
First, it is clear that a subsequent Minister or Government might not take the same view as a matter of general policy.
Secondly, the courts have made it clear on many occasions that they are concerned not with Government or parliamentary intention but with the terms of the Bill. If the Bill were to go on the statute book in its present form, irrespective of the Government's intention, this assurance would have no legal force.
The Government have sought to indicate that the amendment that hon. Members of all Opposition parties wish to achieve is unnecessary. They claim that it would not profit them not to get planning permission first, because, except in the unlikely circumstances of the Government wishing to carry out their own development, planning permission would still be necessary. I concede that point, but suggest that that is not a satisfactory defence. Although planning permission and an inquiry might still be necessary, if the Government used their compulsory purchase powers in the first instance it would be a different form of inquiry, because the man who had had his land acquired by compulsory purchase would presumably no longer be a valid objector and would have no opportunity to put forward objections to the planning permission that the Government or some private developer had in mind.
Secondly, it would be a different matter for the Secretary of State, as final planning authority, to exercise his discretion over land already owned by the Government as opposed to land owned by a private individual.
So although the Government might still have to ensure that planning permission was obtained, even if they had already acquired ownership of the land, this would not be much protection to many of those who are vitally concerned in ensuring


that a full and proper discussion of the objectives of those requiring planning permission shall be properly obtained.
I welcome the Minister's assurance. We have always believed that some amendment was both possible and necessary. It is good to see the Government now taking the same view.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: When the Minister clarified this confusing problem, did he mean that in no circumstances would the Government acquire land compulsorily first and then seek to change the planning permission? Or is he saying that if they do acquire land they will nevertheless seek planning permission afterwards and go through the appropriate processes? If so, the interests involved are different. If one's land has already gone, one's objections to what it is used for are different from the situation if one still holds the land and worries about what will happen to it.
This is the nub of the Bill. It is an expedited procedure Bill. I agree with the Government that we want to speed up the acquisition of sites, and I should like better protection of people's rights. Does the Minister intend to have planning inquiries in every case, whether the land is Government owned or privately owned, before any change of planning? To what extent will this expedite the process? That is what puzzles me. What shall we gain as a result?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have great sympathy with the last remarks of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). Perhaps we can return to this when we discuss the question "That the clause stand part of the Bill". On Second Reading we elicited from the Government the fact that they would go through full planning procedures in advance of acquiring the land. One begins to ask what will be expedited at the end of the day. But perhaps we can return to that.
I welcome the Minister's assurance, and we look forward to hearing in what form of words he will frame his amendment. If he can give us a sight of his proposals before Report, it would help us to form an opinion. As we shall be able to debate

the matter then, I would advise my hon. Friends not to press our amendments.

Mr. Grimond: I am grateful to the Minister, and, in view of his assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: We are glad that the Minister has made his statement at the beginning of the debate. What concerned me was what sort of planning control and public participation there would be. I wondered how many planning applications would necessarily be called in and whether the Minister, through no fault of his own, would be wearing two hats—as the acquiring Minister and as the planning Minister. If it is necessary in the commercial interest or the national interest to take over a particular area, there is an equal needs to safeguard the planning requirements.
This whole case was shown up in the recent business of Howard Davis at Kishorn, as reported in an article in the Glasgow Herald, which showed that this was an instance in which difficulties were experienced after planning consent had been given by the Government. The difficulty has been to get the developers to keep to the terms of the planning consent. Perhaps we can return to that aspect when we discuss the penalties to be inflicted on developers to ensure that they keep to the terms of their licences.

Mr. Millan: When everyone is so agreeable, I hesitate to point out that neither of the amendments is any use for the job that they are trying to do. However, in case there is any lingering feeling that they are, in case we do not produce an acceptable amendment I must say that I would not recommend hon. Members to table either of these again. They are technically deficient, for reasons that I will not go into now. It will be difficult, I admit, to get an acceptable amendment.
To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), in the first instance planning permission will be obtained before acquisition, but subsequently the concern of some people is that, the activity having carried on for a certain period and then ceased, to be replaced by an alternative activity on the same site, the situation would then be of development on a site


which had been earlier compulsorily acquired. It is in that situation as well that we want to ensure that we do not abrogate the normal planning procedures. In other words, we want to cover every eventuality. That is what makes this task difficult.

Amendment negatived.

Sir John Gilmour: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 13, leave out 'or other installations'.

The Temporary Chairman: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'or associated apparatus', and Amendment No. 13, in page 1, line 19, leave out paragraph (c).

Sir John Gilmour: The phrase "other installations" in this subsection seems to give a much wider application than is necessary. One can understand that when it comes to acquiring sites which are desirable because of deep water or other circumstances there may be a need for special powers, but "other installations" appears to cover a multitude of possible sins. I hope that we can have some explanation of what this means.
I was out in the North Sea during the Summer Recess and saw, for instance, the single mooring buoy in the Auk field. That type of installation does not need to be constructed on a site for which compulsory powers are necessary. A great deal of the work in tying up oil flow lines, and so on, is done with midget submarines and diving bells, and future exploration will be done by such things as drill ships, all of which can be constructed in existing yards. I do not see the reason for this wide drafting and I hope that the Minister can tell us what he thinks will be covered by these words.

Mr. John Smith: I understand the reason for the amendment, which I take it from the tone of the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) is a probing amendment. The reference to "other installations" is designed to take account of future technological developments such as undersea production installations and also such exploration facilities as drill ships, which are not covered by the term "platform".
The immediate purpose for which this paragraph is likely to be used is the

acquisition of sites for the construction and assembly of production platforms. Sub-sea completion systems are unlikely to offer a substitute for platforms until at least the 1980s, but in the Government's view it is appropriate that the Bill should cater not only for today's problems in this field but for tomorrow's. In an area of developing technology there is some merit in allowing flexibility in this drafting. If the hon. Member is satisfied with that explanation, perhaps he will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Sir John Gilmour: I am slightly mystified by the Minister's mention of such things as drill ships, because that is exactly the sort of thing that is being constructed in the established shipyards and which we do not wish to be constructed in a specially contrived new installation. However, leaving that matter aside, I am satisfied with the rest of the hon. Gentleman's explanation.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Fairnbairn: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in Clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out 'housing'.

The Temporary Chairman: With this we are to take Amendments Nos. 136, in page 2, line 1, leave out from 'housing' to 'or'.
No. 15, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'sources of material' and insert:
'schools, clinics, health centres, community centres, sports grounds, recreational facilities '.
No. 16, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'sources of material'.
No. 17, page 2, line 1, leave out 'or other services or facilities'.
No. 19, in page 2, line 4, leave out from 'above' to end of line 5.
And No. 20, in page 2, line 5, at end insert:
'or improvement of communities affected by such development or use of land'.

Mr. Fairbairn: The other amendments remove the remainder of the clause.
As we have already said, this is a very widely drawn Bill, allegedly taking special powers for special purposes for a special


reason. If one reads in combination the beginning of subsection (2):
The purposes mentioned in subsection (1) above include in particular the provision … of
one finds that it is not an exclusive or a restrictive clause. We do not object to "means of access" but the words "housing, sources of material "which can be quarries, can mean anything. The phrase "or other services" can mean any form of service. It can mean electrical services, shopping services or educational services or facilities. In other words, that section means anything
required for the development or use of land … or for meeting the needs of persons employed or to be employed in connection with any such purpose.
That means anything.
It is perhaps relevant that someone who represents a constituency which has no shoreline should be concerned with this provision, which, as I understand it, is in a Bill which is allegedly concerned with maritime developments. But there is no activity or service required which is excluded, not just for a man on the site but for an man off the site providing a service for a man on the site. In other words, under the clause as it stands, the Secretary of State may acquire any part of Scotland, wherever that part is situated, or the whole of Scotland, for any reason. That is what the clause covers.
It seems that if it were to be construed by a court of law, the ejusdem generis rule could never apply, because it covers everything. If we leave the clause as it stands, what it is saying is that the Secretary of State may require any land for any purpose which satisfies any human need for anyone working on the exploration or exploitation of offshore petroleum. It is for that reasons that I move the amendment.

[Mr. JOHN WELLS in the Chair] 6.15 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: I, too, have tabled an amendment—Amendment No. 136—designed to achieve the same end. I shall not repeat the arguments about the wide nature of the Bill. We have heard them often today. Nevertheless, they are true. What worries me slightly is that, as I understand it, the accelerated procedure

can be used for the benefit of private companies by the Secretary of State. There is no doubt that in Shetland the creation of the infrastructure necessary for oil is extremely important and urgent, and it is not receiving the attention it deserves. The Shetland roads are in a deplorable state through heavy traffic. As far as I can see, this subsection will not contribute anything to remedying that matter or help the local authorities in any way.
That being so, I should have thought that Parliament should not include housing without some sort of restriction on it. Nor, I should have thought, should Parliament include "sources of material", which might include anything. Regarding sources of material, the conservation associations are very worried because they can see that under this provision quarries of all sorts might be opened up, with grave damage to the landscape, and that these would not necessarily be of benefit to the local people. They may be opened up purely for the convenience of commercial companies which the Secretary of State wishes to further, no doubt for good reason.
I may have misunderstood the effect of this clause but I should like some explanation of what it will mean in practice. I believe that while it is an extremely serious matter in Shetland— and will become so in Orkney—to provide the infrastructure for oil, this is not really what the clause is doing. It will not assist the local authorities, and I have grave doubts whether it is necessary in this very wide form.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I have only one very brief point to make in connection with the proposal to take out housing. We must remember that on the coast most likely to be affected—the east coast —there are many extremely picturesque houses, some of which are very small. They have had help from the National Trust and the Historic Buildings Council, which have built up these conservation areas with considerable difficulty. The associations primarily concerned with preservation are very worried because they want to know that the area which they have preserved will be maintained. Perhaps we should have a special comment about housing areas which fall into that category.

Mr. Millan: Mr. Millan rose—

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I was concerned with one of the amendments, but if the Minister of State wishes to reply to the other contributors to the debate, I shall be happy to leave it to him at this stage.

Mr. Millan: I am not too anxious to make a number of speeches, if I may reply to all the points at once.
The purpose of drawing subsection (d) in this wide form is that one of the worries of local authorities, as well as others, about major oil-related developments is that, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, (Mr. Grimond) very fairly said, insufficient attention is given to infrastructure in the widest sense. That includes means of access by road, and so on, to the sites. It includes the housing of the people concerned, questions of where the materials come from, and the rest.
It seems that if one is to have an expedited acquisition procedure and to use that procedure for the basic site— and this paragraph is really ancillary to what will happen under the rest of the subsection—it would be quite remiss of us and would be doing a disservice to the local authorities and communities if we did not include these provisions as; well. That is because we should then gel: the anomalous situation that we could use an expedited acquisition order to get the land for the construction site, for example, but we might find that we could not then get the necessary land for the housing of workers going there or of the local people who would be working there, or the land for the other facilities or for proper access. There would be inconvenience, disturbance and dislocation for the local community and the rest.
Therefore, if we have the principle of expedited acquisition, which the Government are obviously anxious should be maintained in the Bill, it must include these items as well if we are not to produce solutions about which the local authorities and local communities would be very distressed.
In dealing with this, one has to provide a definition which is expressed in wide terms—although I do not see anything in the amendments tabled so far which would restrict that definition in an acceptable way without taking out

important elements in the definition, which I think must remain in the Bill. If an amendment were tabled in a way that covered all the essential needs of the paragraph but, perhaps, cut out possible excrescences, I should naturally be willing to look at it. But, with respect, such an amendment has not appeared on the Order Paper so far. Therefore, I must advise the Committee against accepting the first group of amendments, namely, Nos. 41, 36, 16, 17 and 20.
I should mention the sources of material point. I understand that although people are generally in favour of housing, they are not so much in favour of quarries, and so on. In any event, planning permission would have to be obtained. Nothing can override planning permission.
Fears were expressed concerning conservation areas. They would be protected by the planning procedure. We are now speaking of the compulsory acquisition of land once the planning procedure has been gone through.
Two other amendments have been tabled by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and his hon. Friends which seek to insert items rather than to take them out of paragraph (d). They propose to add references to schools, clinics and health centres. This is where we have to draw a dividing line. I accept that it is necessary, when building up a new community, that schools, clinics and health centres should be provided. I do not believe that in these circumstances, and in relation to expedited acquisition, there is likely to be the same degree of urgency for these community facilities. I believe that we can obtain the necessary facilities provided for these services without specifying them here and without necessarily going through the expedited acquisition procedure.
I am willing to look at this matter again, although I do not recommend the acceptance of these amendments, since they are unnecessary. We are dealing with some of them on a different time scale. I am not saying that it is not important to build up a proper community. That is what is happening. It is necessary to get on with the job of providing schools, clinics, and so on. I


know that the problem was a very important consideration in the minds of members of the Shetland County Council in relation to Sullom Voe.
We believe that the balance in paragraph (d) is about right. On the one hand, we are attacked for making it too wide—the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) suggested that schools and so on are already included, whether we mentioned them or not—and on the other, we are told that we should include even more specific matters. We believe we have achieved about the right balance, but I am willing to look at the matter again. If I feel there is anything that needs to be added to the Bill, I shall consider it before Report.

Mr. John Farr: What the Minister has said is of great interest, particularly in relation to Amendment No. 16, dealing with sources of material. I hope that his undertaking to look again at this part of the Bill includes the consideration of sources of materials. The powers granted in the Bill so far appear to justify the expedited compulsory acquisition of such matters as limestone quarries, sand and gravel reserves, fluorspar reserves for steelmaking, and many other minerals.
The fear has been expressed that such powers could cover most of the minerals in Scotland. I hope the Minister will include Amendment No. 16 in his undertaking to look again at the latter part of this group of amendments.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am pleased that the Minister has agreed to look again at Amendments Nos. 15 and 20. I expected a great deal of sympathy from Government supporters on this matter.
Paragraph (d) says that the facilities will be provided generally
for meeting the needs of persons employed or to be employed in connection with any such purpose.
It must be conceded, first, that when we are about to engage in an area which previously might not have experienced much industrial activity, the fact of bringing in large construction works will change the nature and character of the communities concerned. It is in the interests of such developments that good quality housing be made available for the workers coming to the area. From

that point of view, the clause as at present drafted would meet the demand.
However, we must think of the community as a whole. One of the tragedies of modern Scotland is that many housing developments leading to large housing estates have had the facilities necessary to community life brought in at a later date. Recently, some local authorities have found it necessary to introduce the clinics, the leisure centres, and other facilities, in a desperate effort to commence community efforts. I have in mind especially the existing large urban housing schemes.
This problem is not solely related to the industrial areas as we know them. The amendment is particularly relevant, because the Bill does not deal with those areas, either. The Bill largely applies to Ross-shire. An example may be found, for instance, in the development of Alness, because of the rapid development of that part of the country, which is related partly to oil development and partly to the aluminium smelter. I am informed by people on the spot that there is a lack of facilities in that new housing area.
The object of the amendments is to highlight two needs. The first is to provide the necessary back-up facilities to community living for all those who may live in a given area. The second is that some attention should be paid to the communities as well, in relation not only to incoming labour, important as it is to fit in, but to the needs of the community as it was, and as it will change and develop as a result of the oil activity which may be expected in terms of this Bill.
It is for those reasons that we have tabled these two amendments. Instead of carping at the very wide applications of the Bill, we are, in a sense, seeking in this instance to increase the application of the Bill to provide facilities. If the hint which has been given to the Minister about the need for social, recreational and health facilities is acceptable, part of the purpose of the amendment will have been achieved.
Having accepted the assurance given by the Minister, we could perhaps leave the amendments to another time. I hope that the Minister will find it possible to produce a specific provision to meet the points which have been made.
Finally, I turn my attention to the sources of materials. This was one of the items in the Bill which immediately met the eye of any hon. Member who consulted it in detail, because of its very wide application.
I noted a case mentioned in an edition of the Glasgow Herald, which is pursuing some sort of inquisitorial examination of the Kishorn developments. Reference was made to what was quoted in the newspaper as "a disturbing sidelight" on the Howard Doris activities. It refers to an application submitted for planning consent in relation to a quarry site to supply aggregate, some indication having been given to a local contractor, Coastal Concrete Limited, to withdraw a similar application on the suggestion that it might subsequently be able to apply for and get the benefit of the contract to supply aggregate for the business concerned. It appears, however, that Howard Doris has applied to quarry the same aggregate on its own. If this sort of arrangement is happening now under the existing regulations relating to planning, married to the proposals for expedited acquisition on the part of the Government, it may help to strengthen the hand of the developer at the expense of the local business man or the local construction firms.
I hope that the Minister will give consideration to preventing some form of abuse either by altering the Bill in some way or, alternatively, by considering the inclusion of some form of principle in the licence which will ultimately be issued to each such development.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Millan: Dealing with that last point, it is not for me to go into the merits of the Kishorn case, but what is at issue there is that there are allegations that some of the planning conditions have been broken by the developer. However, the importance of the case is that it demonstrates that the planning procedures allow planning permissions to be granted with a series of conditions attached to them. In the Kishorn case, the conditions were partly those of the local authority and partly those which were added by the Secretary of State when he gave his permission to the development. That is all

covered under the planning legislation at the moment, and there is no need to underwrite that by inserting other provisions in the Bill.
All that we are concerned with is whether the activity concerned is one which should appear in subsection (2) and, therefore, potentially attract the expedited acquisition procedure contained in subsection (4) and beyond. I have given reasons why it is important that we should do that. We want to get a balanced development and not simply the quick development of one part of the project which is of interest from the developer's point of view, leaving that part designed for the protection of the local community to come much later. We want development in a co-ordinated way, for the benefit of the community as well as that of the developer. That is why the Bill is drafted as it is.
I hope that my explanations have been generally reassuring to the Committee.

Mr. Fairbairn: I am obliged to the Minister for his kindly assurance that he believes that the draftsmanship has achieved judgment and balance. I hope only that its application will achieve the same judgment and balance.
The hon. Gentleman's assurance that the draftsmanship means what he says it means leaves me still with some concern. Although I accept that it is difficult to draft a clause which gets it right, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's assurance that he will try to improve on the clause before Report.
Subject to the possibility of my wishing to raise the matter on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 18, in page 2, line 3, leave out 'subsection (1) above' and insert 'this subsection'.

No. 151, in line 5, at end insert:
'( ) The purposes for which land may be acquired under this Act shall not include the refining of crude petroleum, except so far as is necessary for its onward despatch.'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 2, line 5, at end, insert:
'(e) sites or rights for alternative public rights of way or other public rights mentioned in section 2(5) of this Act'.

The Temporary Chairman: With this Amendment we are to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 32, in Clause 2, page 3, line 29, at end insert:
'but shall in exercise of this power be required where reasonably practicable to furnish rights alternative to those affected by such order of extinguishment'.
Amendment No. 33, in page 3, line 29, at end add:
'(6) Before extinguishment of any public right of way the Secretary of State shall provide an alternative right of way'.

Mr. Wilson: The interesting point which may arise out of this amendment is a practical one to local communities which have relied upon public rights of way or rights of access to the foreshore. If the Secretary of State considers that such a right should be abrogated to help with a development, it may give rise to considerable difficulty to the public in a given community.
It would not be helpful to give a specific example, but hon. Members can imagine that if public rights of way were removed—I refer to rights of way being exercised and not to those of marginal recreational use—there could be difficulty.
The amendment is designed to cause the Secretary of State to be under some form of duty, wherever practicable, to provide a form of alternative access, and to enable him to acquire rights or ground in order to fulfil the desire of the local community.
Such an amendment could be of help to the Secretary of State. It might cause him to doubt the wisdom of interfering with a public right of way knowing that it would cause inconvenience to the local community. Given a power under the Bill to acquire speedily some additional rights which might take its place, he might find the situation improved to the advantage of all concerned.
I shall be interested to know the Minister's attitude to the amendment.

Mr. Gray: I support this amendment. The Minister may not be aware that rights of way are almost a way of life in the Highlands. We take them very seriously. Many legal cases have been fought about them, and they have been a lucrative source of income to lawyers, who for

many years have been disputing rights of way in various parts of the country.
If it is necessary to close a right of way every endeavour should be made to provide some alternative. Many rights of way are used by people daily and not just occasionally. Their use results in savings in time and travel for people in remote areas. Since most of our oil developments and related developments take place in remote areas, because they are normally nearer the deep water which is so valuable, the rural parts of the country are likely to be affected most.
I do not suggest that the Minister takes this view, but very often when we deal with legislation of this kind we are apt to overlook the fact that although perhaps relatively few people are affected by a right of way those people have exactly the same rights as everyone else in the country. We are most anxious to ensure that these rights are not interfered with in any way. We hope that the Minister will consider the possibility of not interfering with them at all, but if it is essential to do so he ought to try to provide some alternative to them.

Mr. Hector Monro (Dunfries): When the Minister comes to discuss rights of way in relation to an order, I hope that he will have gone over the issue at the planning stage. Consultations beforehand might save considerable legislation later on, quite apart from numbers of court cases involving civil actions about rights of way.
The hon. Gentleman may well know that in my constituency over the past year there has been a particular problem of this very kind—the extinguishment of a right of way, and building proceeding before all the objections had been clarified. Counsel's opinion in such cases can be very expensive. I would like to be counsel when I have to give an opinion on rights of way, as the fees they charge can be very high, and the proceedings can drag on and on for a long time. I hope the Minister will clarify at what stage consultation will take place over rights of way, the point put forward by my hon. Friend, particularly in relation to crofters and farmers, who have many such rights, and to landowners themselves.
Amendment No. 33 which is tied with the other two amendments, is to insert a


subsection to follow subsection (5), which reads:
The Secretary of State may by order extinguish any public rights of way or other public rights. …
I want the hon. Gentleman to be quite clear about wildfowling on the foreshore, a pastime enjoyed by many people in Scotland. What is the exact position now? Is the Secretary of State to be able to say, "We are going to have no more wild-fowling because an oil rig is being built in the vicinity"? What are the rights on the foreshore above and below high water? Will the Minister in winding up make clear exactly where we stand in relation to wildfowling rights and wildfowl shooting on the foreshore and what position of the tide he is going to talk about? This may sound of minor importance in relation to the subject with which we are dealing, but if it is not cleared up now it may cause endless difficulties later on.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Under this amendment I would ask the Minister to give some thought to common rights which are numerous in the Highlands and Islands. I refer particularly to grazings which may extend to the sea, and the right of crofters to cut peat in those areas, and the right of crofters and others to collect seaweed and have access to the beach and so on. If under the Bill these rights are to be denied in specific areas I hope the Minister will give an assurance that an amendment will provide for these to be replaced elsewhere.

Mr. Henderson: I intervene, if only briefly, because in my constituency we have already had an example of an abridgement of a right there as a result of oil development. The Minister will be aware that Peterhead Bay was acquired by the Secretary of State under the Peter-head Bay Management Act and the Peterhead Bay management committee appointed by the Secretary of State now controls the operations within the bay although not in the fishing harbour. Traditionally, it has been the right of people in Peterhead to go to the end of the breakwater in their cars and enjoy the bracing air, as the Minister would be welcome to do should he come to Peterhead at any time on a pleasant afternoon. The people are now prohibited from doing so by a notice issued by the

Peterhead Bay management committee stating that admission to this part of the breakwater is now prohibited. When I wrote asking by what authority the company did so I was told, under authority vested in the company by the Act.
This is, perhaps, an early example of the way in which public rights can be abridged without any alternative being provided. That is why I support my hon. Friend in this amendment.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: We have three amendments to consider. Perhaps I can satisfy the Committee by dealing with them fairly briefly in the light of what I am going to say. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) addressed himself to Amendments Nos. 21 and 32. Amendment No. 21 is the one which causes us to consider this matter slightly out of phase, since we are now dealing with Clause 1 and that matter really comes under Clause 2; but we may well discuss it now.
It seeks to give power possibly to acquire land in order to provide a right of way or public footpath. There would be some difficulty with this. It is one thing to tell a farmer that we need to take his land for an oil platform construction site, but we might get a quite different reception if we were to tell him that we want to take his land compul-sorily for a public footpath. That is one objection to be made to the technique which the hon. Gentleman has used here.
Amendment No. 32 is the more important. This amendment, and the one put forward by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), are along roughly similar lines, but a slightly stronger duty is imposed by his amendment. Both amendments seek to put on the Secretary of State a duty to provide alternative rights to replace rights extinguished by an order under Clause 2(5). The amendment of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty goes further than the other in seeking to make it an absolute duty, whereas that of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, East puts the qualifications "where reasonably practicable". We have received representations from the Scottish Rights of Way Society and the Ramblers' Association putting forward suggestions on roughly similar lines.
I make clear at this stage, and it may satisfy hon. Members who have raised these particular points, that we believe the principle of providing alternative rights of way is reasonable and we would accept it. In practice it is unlikely that subsection (5) would be applied to public footpaths and bridleways. Instead, the planning authority would be asked to use its discretionary powers to make an order under Section 199 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 to close the path and to create an alternative, or else to impose a condition of planning permission requiring the provision of an alternative path by the developer.
At this stage hon. Members will bear in mind that before anything is done under the Bill consideration is to be given under planning permission. As a native of Argyll I would assure the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty that I am not unaware of some Highland problems. I am not happy about accepting his invitation to visit Peterhead without knowing which part and which facility I would be asked to visit.
The hon. Gentleman raised the example of Peterhead, a matter which we cannot do much about under the Bill, as an example of the kind of problem that might be created. Although there are other ways of dealing with the problem, as I have mentioned, under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, we have considered the matter, and we believe it is possible to envisage a position in which an order might be made under subsection (5) with the result that a right of way would be extinguished without replacement, which would probably involve a degree of urgency. Therefore, the amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty would not help, because extinguishment must take place before the Secretary of State is asked to consider an alternative right of way.
I can say on behalf of the Government that I would be willing to accept the spirit of Amendment No. 32 proposed by the hon. Member for Dundee, East and we would undertake to produce a Government amendment later in the progress of the Bill. The amendment might run on lines confining it to providing rights of way, provided the Secretary of State is satisfied of the need to provide an alternative right of way. I hope that that

will be regarded by hon. Members who have raised the matter as some comfort in relation to the attitude they take.

Mr. Buchan: Would the hon. Gentleman promise in the amendment to extinguish the word "extinguishment"?

Mr. John Smith: We will consider that. The hon. Gentleman raised what at first sight appears to be a very small matter in relation to an important consequence arising from the Bill. Nevertheless, we must be careful of people's rights and it is for this reason that the Government are willing to look at a future amendment.

Mr. Monro: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has accepted the spirit of the amendment of my hon. Friend, but is he saying he will put down an amendment on Report, and if so will he, when he moves it, be quite explicit in relation to wildfowling and foreshore rights?

Mr. John Smith: I cannot give that undertaking. I feel I have gone as far as it is reasonable for a Minister to go in the present circumstances, but we will put forward an amendment at a later stage of the Bill.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the assurance he has given in relation to rights of way and so on, but in relation to the point raised by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) about crofters' and grazing rights, while the hon. Member will have more experience of this than I, I know from those occasions when, as he knows, I have visited Benbecula that the whole question of rights in relation to the development of the rocket range there has caused a lot of trouble. When I was in the Scottish Office we had a considerable number of complaints about the way the Minister of Defence acted in relation to the continuance of those rights and the restrictions he put on the exercise of them. This has caused a great deal of distress to people who have limited facilities and resources in terms of land, grazing, and the rest. Interference to any great extent, therefore, may be very material to their welfare and their livelihood.
While I welcome the Under-Secretary of State's assurance about rights of way, I hope that he will also look at the question of crofters' rights in particular, and of common grazing rights, because of the


difficulties already experienced in other areas.

Mr. John Smith: It would have been helpful if this aspect had been clearly focused in an amendment. It has come in on a side wind, and I cannot extend the assurance that the Government are considering the position with regard to rights of way. Of course we will look at the matters raised by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), but without commitment.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The Under-Secretary of State's assurance is welcome. Will he consider consulting the Crofters' Commission during the next week or so to see whether some of the objections raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) could be taken care of in the Bill—for example, those relating to common rights?

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman can take it that the Government will make no changes with respect to crofters without consulting the Crofters' Commission.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to ask leave, to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 2, line 6, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 7.

The Temporary Chairman: With this amendment we shall take the following amendments:

No. 23, in line 12, leave out subsection (4).

No. 31, in line 33, leave out paragraph '(b)'.

Mr. Wilson: In a sense, Amendment No. 22 is consequential, because the real bones of the matter are contained in Amendment No. 23. We are now at the stage where, perhaps, we are dealing with the general disagreement about the Bill as it stands or, indeed, about the need for the Bill at all.
The Government would have been in a stronger position if they had been in office two years ago in relation to then wish to get the maximum British involvement, or Scottish involvement, in the plat-

form construction business. The plain fact is, as admitted by the Department of Energy, that we have under order or under construction a sufficient number of platforms to enable 80 million tons of oil a year to be produced by the 1980s, with other platforms under order or under construction for unspecified periods which could give rise to another 24 million tons of oil a year.
That could bring us to the point of self-sufficiency without the need of new sites at all under the Bill. If that is so, it can be argued that there is no need for the expedited acquisition procedure and that, if there is to be United Kingdom self-sufficiency in oil by the 1980s through the platforms already under construction or on order, if any further platforms are required the normal compulsory acquisition procedures, which have served relatively well for years, can be applied, with or without the drastic modifications proposed in this clause.
It has been indicated during the last week that the Government's aim is to let oil production soar out of control until the early 1980s, perhaps rising from 150 million tons to 200 million tons a year. The fate of the pound today may be one reason why the Government are so anxious to obtain the oil as quickly as possible and—this is perhaps more objectionable in many ways from the Scottish point of view—in such quantities. The sooner the oil is used, the sooner it is finished, and in these days of worldwide energy shortages it is better to pursue a more gentle course in relation to the utilisation and exhaustion of a very precious resource.
If this is so, it will lead the Scottish National Party into conflict with the Government in relation to this clause. It may be arguable, and may be accepted in many ways, that there is need for acquisition of sites in the public interest, particularly where there may be guarantees about restitution or the reinstatement of sites after construction work has been completed. But on subsection (3), with the extension of the Government's power to take land out of private ownership with very short shrift indeed, any Member must stand up and defend the liberties of the subject, whatever political point of view he may have.
Where the public interest demands that land should be taken over, the purpose


should be shown clearly and specifically. If we are going beyond the normal acceptance of the doctrine of public acquisition on the basis that the Government wish to take over land on an emergency basis by the expedited acquisition procedure, it is doubly necessary to show that there is a very genuine need which would benefit the public interest. I am not convinced that such a need has been proved by the Government.
In the circumstances, I must reiterate our objections to the provisions of the Clause. I suppose that it is too much to hope that the Government have had second thoughts about the Bill, but it would give many people great cause for thanks if, even at this late stage, the Government were to accept that the expedited acquisition procedure is not necessary and that the powers which may otherwise be contained in the Bill should be discussed without reference to this objectionable clause. In these circumstances, I have had the greatest possible pleasure in moving the amendment on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself.

Miss Harvie Anderson: The clause is causing universal objection, and a considerable number of organisations have made strong representations about the procedure suggested in it. In general, the concern relates to the form of parliamentary approval to which the expedited acquisition orders shall be subject. As I understand it, the Bill would empower the Secretary of State to process complete planning and land acquisition procedures on land of a very high agricultural or environmental interest within a short period and without necessarily any public inquiry or adequate parliamentary scrutiny. The organisations that have expressed the greatest concern have in common the fact that they are all concerned on a day-to-day basis with problems of land use. All of them are concerned in different ways with the conservation of the environment. I shall not weary the Committee with detail. I am sure that it is already well known to the Government.
I hope that the Minister will deal with the absence of safeguards. The absence of a guarantee of adequate scrutiny is at the root of the concern. What most of us would wish to see as a result of the amendments is that expedited acquisition

orders should be subject to affirmative resolution.
7.0 p.m.
I suspect that the Government will put forward some offers but I do not believe that they will go far enough to satisfy me. The suggestion of a truncated procedure would still not meet the wishes of those who arc extremely anxious I do not wish to go into detail until I hear what the Government have to offer. It seems that if the Government go only half way public anxiety about the opportunity to express their point of view will not be allayed.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have a few words to say on Amendment No. 23. I shall be brief as I made my point following the intervention of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). I make the basic point again—namely, what is the expedited acquisition procedure to achieve in terms of time?

Mr. John Smith: I make it clear at the outset that the Government intend to resist the amendments. The effect of the amendments taken together is to remove from the Bill the power to make expedited acquisition orders. This is a matter that goes right to the heart of the Bill. It would leave the Secretary of State with only the power to acquire land by agreement or to use ordinary compulsory purchase orders.
The major justification for the Bill is speed in making facilities available for oil production platforms for the speedy exploitation of offshore oil resources, balance of payments benefits and the creation of employment. Where in the Government's judgment land must be made available as a matter of urgency for any of the purposes mentioned in Clause 1(2), it is necessary to have an accelerated procedure which will cut down as much as possible the delays normally attending land purchase in the public sector.
It is well known that the major holdup is the public inquiry procedure. It is a procedure that can be extremely time-consuming in the process of land acquisition. The expedited acquisition procedure will avoid such delay taking place. It is from the Government's view indispensable.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has referred to planning permission. We are allowing for certain appeals to take place in that we are allowing the full gamut of planning procedure to be gone through. We are doing so because we are aware of the view that it is in the context of a planning decision that the rights of the whole community can be considered. The people who are entitled to object to a compulsory purchase order made under this Bill or any other Bill have a much more limited scope than the people who can present their views to a public inquiry. The people who have rights in land on which attention is focused and take part in a public inquiry on a compulsory purchase order are able to have a much wider range of purposes considered. As a result, the whole community can better participate in making its views known at the planning stage.
Having been prepared to balance the interests of the community and of the environment against the economic need to proceed with the purposes of the Bill, we have decided to give way on planning to the interests of the environment. That means that we must cut down on all other matters. We believe that the rights; of the entire community will be better preserved if we allow planning permission to go ahead. We understand that the Bill that was to be put forward by the previous Conservative Government went some way towards knocking down the safeguards that exist under planning permission procedure. We believe that it is necessary to achieve speed but not at the expense of planning permission.
Having made a concession on planning, we need to move fast thereafter. If we had to deal with public inquiries we might find matters held up for a considerable time. It is important that the Committee should realise that delays of a short time can be important. If concrete or steel platforms are not completed at the right time it might be necessary to wait a complete year before they can be towed out and put into position. These matters are crucial and even a few weeks' delay might make a great difference. Such delay might lose for the country an important order with grave consequences for employment.
I do not believe that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) expects his misrepresentations of Government policy to be taken seriously. He will have read the statement made by the Secretary of State and he will have noticed that it is for the first time that a Government are seeking to take powers to control the rate of oil production. We have indicated our views. We believe that we must move towards self-sufficiency in terms of oil resources. That is the intention, and that is why my right hon. Friend made clear his powers in the short and medium term. The position is balanced by the fact that the Government are taking powers to control the rate of production.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Minister accept that there are sufficient platforms under construction or on order to achieve self-sufficiency on a United Kingdom basis based on the information supplied to me by his Department? If he does not accept that, will he confess that his Department supplied the wrong information?

Mr. Smith: I thought that we had gone into this matter in some detail during a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. I shall again explain the fallacy of the hon. Gentleman's line of reasoning. It seems that he has multiplied the number of platforms built or on order by estimating peak production. It takes some time for platforms to reach peak production. Once it is reached it does not last indefinitely. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) and the hon. Member for Dundee, East have already gone into this matter. The hon. Member for Dundee, East is making an assumption which he is not entitled to make when considering the realistic likely flow that will come from the platforms.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter and that he will not misinterpret answers that are given by my Department. I have twice tried to make the position clear. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will study HANSARD. If there is some fault in my reasoning I shall be glad to hear about it. We cannot be too proud about these matters but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be more careful to establish the facts before putting forward any further suggestions of this character.
The amendments go to the core of the Bill and the Government must resist them.

Mr. Grimond: I appreciate the Minister's difficulty in accepting the amendments. I am unhappy about one thing that he has said—namely, that the people whose rights might be drastically affected by the expedited procedure for the compulsory acquisition of land under the Bill will have adequate opportunities to put forward their case at planning inquiries. I agree that they will have such an opportunity, but there are many people, such as crofters and fishermen, who will have great difficulties in putting forward their case at planning inquiries.
I do not want to go over the ground that was covered by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). I tabled an amendment concerned with a body subject to udal law. The udallers have no powerful associations to represent their rights. I leave the Minister with the thought that, although planning inquiries are all right for the sort of people who can employ lawyers or who are represented by powerful associations, people such as crofters and fishermen will not find such inquiries of very much use.

Mr. John Smith: Of course there is the public inquiry, but a public inquiry on a planning matter is in the same position as a planning inquiry on a compulsory purchase order. If the right hon. Gentle-

man is saying that his constituents would be better protected if the expedited procedure were removed and they had to rely on the compulsory purchase procedure he is attacking the remedy which he seeks.

We are aware that public planning procedures can be improved. The Government are studying whether they can deal with them more effectively from the point of view of both speed and hearing the widest possible range of views. However, the right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that a public inquiry would be necessary where the matter was proceeded with if this part of the Bill were deleted.

On planning inquiries, the rights of the whole community, not just the person who has rights in land, are considered, and that is a most important safeguard. Many people could have views about a projected oil development although they had no right in the land but merely lived in the area. Their views must be given as much prominence as, if not more than, those of the people who are fortunate enough to have rights in the land.

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 15, Noes 179.

Division No. 25.]
AYES
17.12 p.m.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Pardoe, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Crawford, Douglas
Penhaligon, David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E.)


Eyre, Reginald
Reid, George



Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Mr Douglas Henderson and


MacCormick, lain
Thompson, George
Mr. Andrew Welsh.


Mudd, David






NOES


Allaun, Frank
Coleman, Donald
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Anderson, Donald
Concannon, J. D.
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Archer, Peter
Conlan, Bernard
Flannery, Martin


Armstrong, Ernest
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Ashtort, Joe
Corbett, Robin
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow M.)
Ford, Ben T.


Atkinson, Norman
Cryer, Bob
Forrester, John


Barnett, Joel (Heywood)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten.)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Bates, Alf
Dalyell, Tarn
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Bean, Robert E.
Davidson, Arthur
George, Bruce


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport H)
Davles, Ifor (Gower)
Golding, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Deakins, Eric
Gould, Bryan


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Gourlay, Harry


Boardman, H.
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Booth, Albert
Dempsey, James
Grant, John (Islington C.)


Boothroyd, Miss Belly
Doig, Peter
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Bradley, Tom
Dormand, Jack
Hamling, William


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Harper, Joseph


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Duffy, A. E. P.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow Pr.)
Dunn, James A.
Hatton, Frank


Buchan, Norman
Dunnett, Jack
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Buchanan, Richard
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Heffer, Eric S.


Caliaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P.)
Edge, Geoffrey
Hooley, Frank


Cartwright, John
Edwards, Robert (Wolv. S.E.)
Horam, John


Clemitson, I. M.
English, Michael
Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S.)
Evans, loan L. (Aberdare)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)




Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N.)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Small, William


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Mikardo, Ian
Smith, John (N. Lanarkshire)


Janner, Greville
Millan, Bruce
Snape, Peter


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Miller, Dr M. (E. Kilbride)
Spearing, Nigel


John, Brynmor
Moonman, Eric
Spriggs, Leslie


Johnson, James (Kingston, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stallard, A. W.


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Murray, Ronald King
Stewart, Rt Hn Michael (H'smith, F)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Newens, Stanley
Stoddart, David


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Noble, Mike
Stott, Roger


Kaufman, Gerald
Oakes, Gordon
Strang, Gavin


Kelley, Richard
O'Halloran, Michael
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Kerr, Russell
Orbach, Maurice
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ovenden, John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Kinnock, Neil
Park, George
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Lamond, James
Parry, Robert
Tierney, Sydney


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N.)
Pavitt, Laurie
Tomlinson, John


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pendry, Tom
Urwin, T. W.


Lomas, Kenneth
Perry, Ernest
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Loyden, Eddie
Prescott, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V.)


Luard, D.
Radice, Giles
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Ward, Michael


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wellbeloved, James


Habon, Dr J. Dickson
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


McCartney, Hugh
Rodgers, William (Teesside)
White, James (Glasgow, P)


McElhone, Frank
Rooker, J. W.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Mackintosh, John P.
Roper, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C.)
Rose, Paul B.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McNamara, Kevin
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)
Woodall, Alec


Madden, Max
Rowlands, Ted
Woof, Robert


Magee, Bryan
Sedgemore, B.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Mahon, Simon
Selby, Harry
Young, David (Bolton E.)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Short, Rt Hon Edward (Newcastle C)



Marshall, Jim (Leicester)
Sillars, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Silverman, Julius
Mr. James Hamilton and


Maynard, Miss Joan
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Thomas Cox.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 152, in page 2, line 20, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
'(5) A statutory instrument containing an expedited acquisition order shall not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(6) Any such statutory instrument shall proceed in Pariament as if its provisions would, apart from this Act, require to be enacted by a public Bill which cannot be referred to a Select or other Committee of either House under Standing Orders of either House relating to private Bills.'.

The Temporary Chairman: With this amendment we shall take the following amendments:
No. 25, in page 2, line 20, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
'(5) No order under subsection (4) above shall be made unless a draft of the order has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament'.
No. 27, in page 2, line 21, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 22 and insert:
'be laid in draft in each House of Parliament and not take effect until such draft shall have been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament'.

Mr. Millan: We are dealing here with the procedure relating to the expedited acquisition order. In the Second Reading debate there was considerable criti-

cism from both sides of the House about the negative procedure. The Government always recognised that there was a strong case for the affirmative procedure provided in the amendment. The difficulty about the affirmative procedure, which makes the second part of the amendment necessary, is that under the standing orders of the other place an instrument affecting private interests which is subject to an affirmative resolution must be dealt with under the Lords' procedures for hybrid measures. They could involve reference of an order to a committee, with opportunities for those affected to petition the House, to be heard by the committee, and so on.
When we are introducing a procedure to expedite acquisition, it would be absurd and inconsistent to have a procedure in the other place which effectively frustrated that intention. That is one reason why the wording of what will be subsection (6) is necessary—to disapply the normal Lords' procedures.
There are precedents, but I do not wish to argue them now. The matter will be argued in the other place. I believe that the House will take the view that the affirmative procedure is much preferable to the negative procedure, and that the disapplication of the other place's standing orders is a price that this House, at least, will be willing to


pay for the insertion of the affirmative procedure.
From the Government's point of view, the choice must be between a negative procedure and an affirmative procedure with the disapplication of the special Lords' standing order. There can be no question of having an affirmative procedure allowing another procedure under the House of Lords standing orders to frustrate the purposes of an expedited acquisition order.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Is it not a fact that the extra time involved would not exceed 21 days? Is there any real objection to an unamended affirmative procedure?

Mr. Millan: That is not the advice I have received. If we were dealing with a procedure guaranteed to be completed in a short time, we should not have been in the difficulty in which we found ourselves in considering the matter in the first instance. I am not an expert on procedure in the other place. I do not say that there have not been occasions when the procedure has been used quickly, but on such occasions there will have been little opposition to what was proposed. If there were opposition, the procedure could be protracted. That is not a risk the Government arc willing to take, because that would frustrate the basic aim of our expedited acquisition procedure.
We have tried to meet the wishes of the House, and therefore I hope that the amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Where gracious-ness is deserved, one should be gracious. The Government deserve to be complimented for having listened to what was said on Second Reading about the need to avoid the dreadful negative procedure that they had at first intended. Second thoughts can sometimes be good. The only question is whether third thoughts might be even better.
I am informed—like the Minister, I am not an expert on the procedures of the other place—that one of the effects of our passing the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), myself and my hon. Friends would be that there could be a

procedure for an inquiry in the other place. Although at first blush that would not be attractive to me and many of my hon. Friends, it would be better than no inquiry.
I am also given to understand that if our amendment were passed an order could be satisfactorily dealt with in the other place within three weeks. I think that that understanding was behind the intervention of the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson). I am told that if the petition procedure were adopted, which happens when there is an objection, it might be two and a half months before the Select Committee of the other place reported. But there would be provision for avoiding the elongated procedure if the Whips were put on by the Government in the other place. In other words, in an emergency the application of the normal devices of acceleration of business could ensure that the emergency was dealt with. If there were no emergency, a period of two and a half months might not seem out of order to consider a matter that might be controversial.
The Government amendment is welcome. I hope that there will be other interventions before I need to make up my mind how to advise my hon. Friends on the possible fate of Amendment No. 25.

Mr. Farr: I, too, wish to express concern about the course the Government have taken. It is a sad thing to see any Government tampering with the time-honoured procedures of Parliament. Despite the compliments that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has just paid the Government, that is what they are doing.
We have long-established negative order and affirmative order procedures. Clearly, the negative order procedure was not adequate here. Instead of bowing to the wish of the House—expressed clearly on Second Reading—that the negative procedure should be replaced by the affirmative procedure, the Government have introduced an affirmative procedure in one part of the amendment and in the second part have more or less taken away the privileges conferred by the first part. They have destroyed nearly all the good done in the first part.
7.30 p.m.
Government Amendment No. 152 is; difficult to follow, but would appear to seek the leave of the Committee not for art affirmative order procedure as we know it, but for a truncated and dehydrated one. This would take much of the effectiveness out of the affirmative order procedure that we know. It is a special concoction by the Government of the day to meet what they regard as the requirements of the Bill. I particularly object to the inclusion of the second paragraph in Amendment No. 152. When this matter was debated on Second Reading the Under-Secretary of State for Energy—the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith)—expressed his concern. He said:
Hon. Members have raised several points of detail on the Bill. One which has been mentioned frequently is the reference in the Bill to the use of the negative procedure on expedited acquisition and the sea designation orders. We have technical problems about using the affirmative procedure because of the question of hybridity if the matter goes to the other place. It is a technical matter, and the Government will listen carefully to what is said in Committee. We take fully the poinis which have been raised."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1974; Vol. 881, c. 1231.]
It is apparent that the second paragraph in Amendment No. 152 is the Government's response to the pleas made on Second Reading.
I regard this as entirely unsatisfactory. If the provisions of the Bill are not subject to the normal affirmative procedure order it will mean that the provisions of this affirmative order procedure—if the second paragraph in the amendment is included—will not be the subject of the special orders procedure in another place. That procedure, which is part and parcel of the affirmative orders procedure, is not slow or cumbersome or, I suggest, inappropriate in the circumstances. The procedure has been set up by Parliament to deal with matters of this nature and has operated effectively for many years. There are certain rules and criteria to guide it. Roughly speaking, the criteria employed by the Special Orders Committee are extremely stringent in determining whether to recommend a further inquiry into an order.
The committee must decide a number of points as soon as the affirmative order is put before it. These include:

whether the Petition discloses substantial grounds for complaint;
whether the matter has been so dealt with under a departmental inquiry that a further inquiry is necessary;
whether the submissions in the Petition could have been brought before a local inquiry and were not;
whether, having regard to the answers to the preceding questions and to the findings, if any, of these inquiries and to other circumstances of the case, there ought to be a further inquiry by a Select Committee.
This special orders procedure in another place has stood the test of time and has proved its worth. It is often a speedy procedure. There are not many cases in which an order will be delayed for more than three weeks. If it is decided in a special case that a Select Committee is called for, it is anticipated that the full processs from start to finish could be concluded within six or seven weeks.
I suggest that what the Minister has apparently so generously given to the House is, in fact, nothing whatsoever. It is merely a play on words, to put in the Bill, in the first paragraph of Amendment No. 152, what would be taken away in the second paragraph. Moreover, the Minister is abusing the customs and procedures of both Houses.
I apologise for intervening in what appears to be an entirely Scottish matter, but it is also a national matter. The Scottish oilfields are of concern to Britain as a whole. If, as we hope, oil is found in the Western Approaches this Bill, when enacted, may become a pattern or an example for a Western Approaches oil Bill which may be rushed through the House at some future time as this Bill is being rushed through now. That is why some of us are concerned with getting the Bill right today. I am sorry that our present parliamentary programme is so congested that not as many of my English colleagues, who I know are interested in various aspects of the Bill, can be present.

[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I speak with some temerity in a Scottish debate, though I live just over the border and have a great interest in this matter. I speak as a member of the executive of the National Trust.
I am aware that the National Trust in England, as well as the National Trust for Scotland, has made representations to my hon. Friend the Minister, and I thank him for taking some account of these representations. Although he has not conceded the whole of what many of us might have wished, he has given a real concession. Here I disagree with the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). The difference between even this modified affirmative procedure and the negative procedure is decidedly real and provides opportunities here in the Chamber that many of us wanted in order to assure ourselves. To that extent we welcome the Government's amendment, although there are other matters later in the Bill on which I may not be welcoming my hon. Friend's decisions.
On this particular matter, however, I feel that my hon. Friend has made a valuable concession. We must see what attitude is taken in the other place on this matter of procedure which particularly affects the other place. Some of us at least recognise that there has been a step forward. While we would have wished to see a full procedure, including that in another place, we recognise what has been done.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We warmly welcome the interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), because the principles of the Bill are very important not only for Scotland but for the whole of the United Kingdom. I greatly welcome the United Kingdom interest shown in the Bill, and there is no need for my hon. Friend or the hon. Gentleman to apologise. I hope that we shall hear them both again later tonight, because there are matters of considerable principle to be considered on which I am sure their contributions would be welcome.
I am also glad that the Government have moved at least part of the way—I personally think a considerable part of the way—towards meeting the criticisms which a number of us, including myself, made on Second Reading of the Government and of the Bill as originally drafted. I would have preferred a simple amendment, such as our Amendment No. 27. However, I appreciate the argument,

although I have not wholly followed it, put forward by the Minister of State, about the necessity of inserting subsection (6). I suggest to my hon. Friends that we do not divide against the amendment.
I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough has said. He has made some valuable points with which I hope the Minister will attempt to deal. I would like to have the opportunity further to study what my hon. Friend has said. In the knowledge that, in another place, this matter will be dealt with again by those whose procedures are being affected, I suggest that it might be sensible to approve the amendment and give the other place the opportunity to express its opinion upon it. We may subsequently be in a better position to express a view upon this.
The Minister has said that this is a complicated matter. I appreciate that he is not trying to steamroller us. Perhaps he can deal with some of the matters which we have raised.

Mr. Millan: As has been said, this is a considerable improvement on what was in the Bill when it was first published. The full affirmative order procedure will apply here. That has a considerable advantage over the negative order procedure. I do not in any way devalue the improvement which the Government have made. It is possible to argue cither that we need an expedited acquisition order procedure or that we do not. What would be an absurdity and would make the Committee look foolish would be for us to agree to a Bill which ostensibly introduces an expedited acquisition procedure and then fail to insert provisions which would exclude the possibility of that procedure being frustrated.
We are dealing here with exceptional cases in which there is a need for great urgency. I am not willing to accept that we should embody provisions in the Bill which would allow the expedited acqui-sion procedure to be frustrated.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Will the Minister consider looking further into the time scale of this, because I think he has an exaggerated idea of what he regards as the delay?

Mr. Millan: I have looked into the time scale before the amendments were


tabled. In certain circumstances the procedure can be comparatively quick. In others, however, it can take a considerable period. We are introducing here an expedited acquisition procedure which provides for compulsory acquisition at 14 days' notice. By a later amendment we shall seek to provide for compulsory acquisition at 21 days' notice. We are not talking about a procedure extending over months, when it does not matter whether we add another 21 days or two months. We are dealing with a situation when, having gone through a fairly protracted planning procedure, we want to get on with the job. We have made no pretence about doing anything different. It can be argued that this is a bad thing to do, but it is not sensible to make provision for doing that and then allow such provisions to be frustrated.
I would not be willing to recommend to the Commitee that we should do that. If this is not acceptable, I would wish to go back to what the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) in another context called "the time-honoured procedure," namely, the negative resolution procedure. It is as much time-honoured as the affirmative resolution procedure. The Committee does not want that. What we have offered is more than half the loaf. I would be happy if this is what the Committee would accept.

Amendment agreed to.

7.45 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 2, line 26, at end add:
'(7) Before acquiring any land for the purposes of subsection (2) above, the Secretary of State shall prepare and publish a survey of all areas which are in his opinion suitable for the purposes of subsection (2) above and this section shall apply only to land included in such a survey or surveys'.
When I served on the Select Commitee on Scottish Affairs which dealt with land use in Scotland I realised how helpful it would have been if we had had available in advance a register of possible sites. The Drumbuie inquiry might never have taken place if a proper register of the best sites for work of that type had been available. If we had such information we could cut down on the unnecessary planning applications and thus help promote the objects of this Bill. There

would not be the turning down of unnecessary planning applications leading to further applications, in respect of other sites.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). We talk nowadays about greater participation in planning and many other spheres. I have not heard anyone criticise the efforts made by the previous Tory Government and by this Government to attempt to publish in advance their ideas of the areas in which certain activities should take place. Indeed, both Government have been criticised for not doing enough. Publication of such information helps concentrate people's attention. It also helps remove a great deal of anxiety felt by those living in the affected areas.
Dealing with technical matters, this method provides a certain amount of expert guidance about the kind of structure which is regarded as appropriate. This has a bearing on where such structures might be built. I do not expect that in principle the Minister will find any fault with what is being proposed. the hon. Gentleman has given us plenty of assurances so far but has not accepted any of our amendments. Perhaps he will accept this, the last amendment to Clause 1.

Mr. Millan: I am sorry that I have to disappoint the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), although I appreciate the intention behind his amendment. It is a worthy intention. Through their publication of the coastal planning guidelines and the various planning surveys for parts of Scotland—for example, of the Clyde—the Government have tried to give everyone concerned as much information and guidance about planning considerations as is reasonably possible. These surveys do not, and could not, have the same authority as Government decisions and could not indicate a definite Government preference, leading to the exclusion of the normal planning procedures. By saying that development should take place only on certain land, thereby excluding all other land, the Government would be abrogating planning procedures. We have always tried to avoid doing that.
We cannot accept the amendment. It is impracticable in terms of time and the work involved, and it is likely to have


undesirable effects about which local communities would be unhappy. In the coastal planning guidelines, these are areas of Scotland which are specified as areas of preferred conservation rather than areas of preferred development. Although that makes some people who live in the areas very happy, some local authority representatives have said to me, informally, that they resent seeing so much of their coastline being put down as a conservation area because they wish to have development in some areas. If an area is included in the coastal planning guidelines as a preferred conservation area, there is an implication that the Government think that development in any circumstances is undesirable.
That applies when we are giving guidelines, but in providing a structural plan for the whole of Scotland, if we divided Scotland into areas in which certain types of development would be preferred to the exclusion of all others we should be doing tremendous damage both to the planning procedures and to local communities. I do not think that the Opposition would appreciate a provision of that sort, and I ask the Committee not to accept the amendment.

Sir John Gilmour: In view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We have reached the end of our discussion of the most important part of the Bill and much that follows will flow from our decisions on the Clause.
I ask the Minister in a kindly way not to misrepresent some of the proposals which the Conservatives put forward in January this year. The powers which we proposed were extremely limited. When I criticised the Government for taking certain powers, the Minister of State said that the Conservatives would have taken exactly the same powers. What is the Minister's authority for saying that? Mr. Gordon Campbell, at the time, said that the powers would be limited to the purposes of exploration and landing the oil. They would not have extended so far as the powers which the Government have taken in the Bill.
The impression has been given that the Conservatives would have short-circuited the planning procedures. That is not so. Our proposals were not described in detail, because the election intervened, but Mr. Gordon Campbell, in his statement on 31st January, was clear that planning permissions would be required. He said that there would be a streamlining of the procedure for these limited purposes. It is unfair to say that the planning procedures would have been overridden in the way in which the Minister suggested.
At the conclusion of our debate the clause remains more or less as it started, with the exception of one major change by the Government on the affirmative resolution procedure. Otherwise, the Government have not moved to limit or restrict the powers which they have taken on themselves. I welcome the assurances that the Minister has given to look at certain matters again between now and later stages.
The major question is whether, by the clause, the Government save any time. On that question there is a fundamental difference between the Government and ourselves. If we are to achieve expedition in offshore oil operations there must be included some form of streamlining of all planning procedures. It is possible to do that without necessarily overriding the rights of the individual. The Government have made clear that they are not expediting planning procedures, yet planning procedures are probably the main cause of delays in the development of offshore oil.
All that the Government are doing is to provide an expedited procedure for acquiring land for the purposes of the development of offshore oil. I question whether, even with that expedited procedure, much time is saved. Compulsory acquisition of land has not to any great extent been the cause of delay. I question whether the expedited procedure will speed up matters in future. It may in certain respects cause delay.
The Minister gave us assurances about Hunterston. He said that everything was sweetness and light between the Government and the Hunterston development company, and that nothing in the Bill would delay development at Hunterston. I accept those assurances in the spirit in which he gave them, but information has


been given me from individuals who are involved to the effect that they are concerned that the Bill could cause delay in platform building operations. I am concerned that in certain circumstances the Bill might delay rather than expedite procedure.
I question whether the wide powers for expediting acquisition procedure do not go far beyond what is necessary to speed up offshore oil development. The powers are excessive in relation to what the Government are achieving in an improve time scale. For that reason, I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the inclusion of the clause.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Millan: It would not be profitable for me to go over the points again because we have discussed the clause exhaustively. I do not wish to debate what might have appeared in the Conservative Government's Bill, because that Bill was never published. All we have to go on is the record of what Mr. Gordon Campbell said in the House on 31st January.
I shall confine myself to drawing attention to two matters. First, I wish to refer to the argument that even if they did not completely override the planning procedures the provisions would at the very least have truncated them, and in the case of Drambuie, would have abrogated the public inquiry which was then taking place. Secondly, it is clear that the kind of development provisions which the then Government had in mind went beyond the question of oil production platforms, as Mr. Campbell explained in the House. What else would have been in the Conservative Bill is not a matter for me. It was not disclosed to me, and I certainly would not wish to debate it now.
We have taken the view that planning procedures should continue. We believe

that by so doing we have met a majority opinion in Scotland and the opinion of the overwhelming majority of those concerned. We are considering what kind of administrative procedures might be introduced or developed to avoid unnecessary delay in planning inquiries but without cutting into the essential rights of objectors.

Frankly, although one can do certain important things in speeding up planning, there is a limit to what one can do administratively if one wishes to maintain the genuine right of objection and to ensure that objections are properly deployed and answered. A truncated procedure which did more than that, and which eroded the rights of objection to a substantial degree, would not, in my view, be acceptable to Scottish public opinion and is not acceptable to the Government.

The expedited procedures were debated on an earlier amendment, and I need say no more on that matter than my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy said in replying to that debate, namely, that there are certain circumstances in which the degree of urgency is great and the time scale critical. In those circumstances, further delay in terms of compulsory purchase provisions in the case of land for which planning permission has already been granted would not, in our view, be acceptable. For that reason the expedited purchase order procedure is entered in the clause.

I believe that we have got the clause right, subject, perhaps, to detailed drafting points that may arise later. The clause is very much the essence of the Bill.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 176, Noes 140.

Division No. 26.]
AYES
 [8.07 p.m. 


Allaun, Frank
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Donald
Bradley, Tom
Cox, Thomas (Wands, Toot)


Archer, Peter
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow M.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow Pr.)
Cryer, Bob


Ashton, Joe
Buchan, Norman
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Buchanan, Richard
Dalyell, Tarn


Atkinson, Norman
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P.)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood)
Campbell, Ian
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bates, Alf
Cartwright, John
Deakins, Eric


Bean, Robert E.
Clemitson, I. M.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S.)
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bidwell, Sydney
Coleman, Donald
Dempsey, James


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Concannon, J. D.
Doig, Peter


Boardman, H.
Conlan, Bernard
Dormand, Jack


Booth, Albert
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce




Duffy, A. E. P.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rooker, J. W.


Dunn, James A.
Kinnock, Neil
Roper, John


Dunnett, Jack
Lamond, James
Rose, Paul B.


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N.)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)


Edge, Geoffrey
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rowlands, Ted


Edwards, Robert (Wolv. S.E.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Sedgemore, B.


English, Michael
Loyden, Eddie
Selby, Harry


Evans, Ioan L. (Aberdare)
Luard, Evan
Short, Rt Hon Edward (Newcastle C)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sillars, James


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Skinner, Dennis


Flannery, Martin
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Small, William


Ford, Ben T.
McCartney, Hugh
Smith, John (N. Lanarkshire)


Forrester, John
McElhone, Frank
Snape, Peter


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C.)
Spearing, Nigel


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McNamara, Kevin
Spriggs, Leslie


George, Bruce
Madden, Max
Stallard, A. W.


Golding, John
Magee, Bryan
Stewart, Rt Hn Michael (H'smith, F)


Gould, Bryan
Mahon, Simon
Stoddart, David


Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stott, Roger


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester)
Strang, Gavin


Grant, John (Islington C.)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hamling, William
Millan, Bruce
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Hardy, Peter
Miller, Dr M. (E. Kilbride)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Harper, Joseph
Moonman, Eric
Tierney Sydney


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tomlinson, John


Hatton, Frank
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Urwin, T. W.


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Murray, Ronald King
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Heffer, Eric S.
Newens, Stanley
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V.)


Hooley, Frank
Noble, Mike
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Horam, John
Oakes, Gordon
Ward, Michael


Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)
O'Halloran, Michael
Wellbeloved, James


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Orbach, Maurice
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N.)
Ovenden, John
White, James (Glasgow, P)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Park, George
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Janner, Greville
Parry, Robert
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie
Wise, Mrs Audrey


John, Brynmor
Pendry, Tom
Woodall, Alec


Johnson, James (Kingston, W.)
Prescott, John
Woof, Robert


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Radice, Giles
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Young, David (Bolton E.)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kelley, Richard
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Kerr, Russell
Rodgers, William (Teesside)
Mr. Tom Ellis.




NOES


Aitken, J. W. P.
Fell, Anthony
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Arnold, Tom
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N.)
Luce, Richard


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
MacCormick, Iain


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Fookes, Miss Janet
Macfarlane, Neil


Banks, Robert
Fry, Peter
MacGregor, John


Bell, Ronald
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mates, Michael


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Mather, Carol


Benyon, W. R.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Biffen, John
Goodhart, Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Biggs-Davison, John
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mayhew, Patrick


Bowden, Andrew (Brighton)
Gray, Hamish
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brotherton, Michael
Grieve, Percy
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Miscampbell, Norman


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Grist, Ian
Monro, Hector


Buck, Antony
Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Peter (Chester)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nelson, Anthony


Burden, F. A.
Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Michael


Carlisle, Mark
Harrison, Sir Harwood (Eye)
Newton, Tony


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Osborn, John


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, S)
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, John (Harrow West)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Henderson, Douglas
Pardoe, John


Cockcroft, John
Holland, Philip
Parkinson, Cecil


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hooson, Emlyn
Pattie, Geoffrey


Cope, John
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Penhaligon, David


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, John
Percival, Ian


Corrie, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Costain, A. P
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Reid, George


Crawford, Douglas
James, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rifkind, Malcolm


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rocgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Durant Tony
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Shelton, William (Lambeth St.)


Elliott, Sir William
Lane, David
Shepherd, Colin


Eyre, Reginald
Lawrence, Ivan
Sims, Roger


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Le Marchant, Spencer
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Speed, Keith







Spence, John
Taylor, Teddy (Glasgow C.)
Wall, Patrick


Spicer, James (W. Dorset)
Tebbit, Norman
Warren, Kenneth


Spicer, Michael (S. Worcester)
Temple-Morris, P.
Weatherill, Bernard


Sproat, Iain
Thatcher, Rt Hon M.
Welsh, Andrew


Stainton, Keith
Thompson, George
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E.)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (Devon)
Young, Sir George (Ealing)


Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Townsend, Cyril D.
Younger, Hon George


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Tugendhat, Christopher



Stokes, John
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stradling Thomas, J.
Viggers, P. J.
Mr.Michael Roberts and


Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Mr. Fred Silvester.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

EXTINGUISHMENT OF RIGHTS AFFECTING LAND

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 153, in page 3, line 17, leave out ' Sections ' and insert:
'The Secretary of State may by order direct that sections'.

The Deputy Chairman: With this amendment it will be convenient to take Government Amendment No. 154.

Mr. Smith: These amendments are of a technical character. I think that hon. Members will be familiar with their purpose. As drafted. Clause 2(4) applies the provisions of Sections 219 and 220 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 directly to land acquired under the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to apply the provisions of the 1972 Planning Act, with modifications, to land acquired under the Bill. This is being done so that provisions can be used as flexibly as the circumstances require where rigid application might be inappropriate.
I ask the Committee to approve the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 154, in page 3, line 20, at end insert:
',with such modifications as appear to him to be necessary.'.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: On an earlier amendment I raised the question of rights and the extinguishment of rights relating to crofters. Before dealing with that matter, I should like to reiterate what we

discussed earlier relating to rights of way, and so on.
One point that has been made on this matter, which concerns me greatly, knowing certain areas in the Highlands quite well, is whether production platform sites will be on the seashore, therefore breaking its continuity and affecting the enjoyment of people walking by the sea. This is a popular pastime for both local people and those who go there on holiday. I make this point in addition to what has been said about rights of way. It will help people who use the shore line if an alternative route is provided round production platform sites so that they may continue their passage along the seashore. It does not sound important, but such provision would be welcomed by those who enjoy walking by the seashore. I hope that this matter will be taken into account.
The Minister of State said that although there was no specific amendment on the grazing rights of crofters in the crofting counties, he would consider the matter further. The Minister knows that there has been pressure from organisations, such as the Scottish Landowners' Federation and the National Farmers' Union that land in crofting occupation should be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. I did not feel justified in tabling or supporting an amendment to that effect because in areas where production platform site activities will take place vast tracts of land are automatically required. I felt that such a proposal, which was put forward in good faith by organisations which have at heart the interests of crofters, went too far and would perhaps negate many of the purposes of this legislation.
I hope that between now and Report the Government will consider whether it is possible to write into the Bill slightly more protection for crofters and the rights that they enjoy. I will certainly consider the matter during that time. I am thinking of crofters' rights not only over croft


land but of common grazings, which are often worked in conjunction with their inby land. Such land is vital to whether a croft will provide an income or become totally unviable.
This problem has arisen with other developments. It is not new. I hope that in further consideration of the Bill particular attention will be paid to this group of people whose livelihood in the Highland areas is wholly traditional and has a far longer history than the new oil developments that we are discussing. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some assurances for the future.

Mr. John Smith: As I indicated earlier in response to an intervention by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), the Government, without commitment, will look at the matters referred to by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). The undertaking that I gave was restricted to rights of way. There may be public concern about other matters. The Government will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said when considering what further might be done.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

DESIGNATED SEA AREAS

The Deputy Chairman: We come now to Amendment No. 35, to be moved by the Minister of State. We will discuss at the same time Amendments No. 138, in page 3, line 35, after 'State', insert:
'having consulted the fishermen likely to be affected,'.
No. 37, in page 3, line 43, at end insert:
'(2) Where a designated sea area includes any part of the area of a harbour authority the Secretary of State before making a sea designation order under this section, shall consult with that authority'.
No. 41, in Clause 4, page 4, line 9, at end insert:
'(2) Where it appears that, as a result of the granting of such a licence, public or private rights of navigation or fishery or other public or private rights on the sea or sea bed in the designated sea area to which the licence relates may be prejudiced, the Secretary of State shall, before granting such licence, consult with those, or with appropriate organisa-

tions of those, whose rights may be so prejudiced '.
No. 45, in Clause 4, page 4, line 26, at end insert:
'and with such local authorities as appear to him to be concerned'.
No. 147, in Clause 4, page 4, line 26, at end insert:
'and the relevant Authority and River Purification Board'.
No. 46, in Clause 4, page 4, line 29, leave out from 'shall' to 'consult' in line 30.

Mr. Grimond: On a point of order. I think that my amendment is first on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Millan: Further to that point of order. The selection does not make it clear whether Amendment No. 138 is simply being taken for discussion with No. 35. I should be happy to move No. 35, but No. 138 relates to a slightly earlier point in the Bill and I thought that the list was slightly defective. Obviously, however, we will bow to your wishes, Sir Myer.

The Deputy Chairman: The selection by the Chairman of Ways and Means has been in hon. Members' hands for a good few hours and I cannot depart from it. As the Minister said, Amendment No. 138 is taken for discussion purposes with No. 35—similarly to what has happened earlier.

Mr. Grimond: May we have a Division separately on No. 138, if necessary, rather than divide on the Government amendment?

The Deputy Chairman: Evidently, it seems that we will already have passed Amendment No. 138 after we have discussed No. 35. Therefore, all that it will be open to hon. Members to do is to discuss No. 138 with No. 35. There cannot be a separate Division on it.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: On a point of order. We are getting into a slight difficulty. When amendments are grouped they are normally taken in the order in which they appear on the Paper and the order in which they would amend the Bill. It is unusual for an amendment to be selected when it is not first in order as the Bill is drafted. I wonder whether some simple error has been made and whether it would not be better to start


the discussion on Amendment No. 138, which would enable the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) to have a Division on his amendment, which is on the general point but rather more specific. We could then divide, or otherwise, on the later amendments. It seems unfair to deny us the opportunity of dividing on the earlier amendment if that should be the wish of the Committee.

The Deputy Chairman: i am afraid that I cannot help hon. Members. The selection has been made and I am afraid that it must stand. All we can do with Amendment No. 138 is discuss it, and because we will have passed it by the time we have decided on No. 35 there cannot be a Division on it. I am very sorry, but I cannot help any further than that.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Further to that point of order. If that is the decision of the Chair, that is the decision of the Chair Could we then divide on Amendment No. 41, which, although in this group, relates to Clause 4?

The Deputy Chairman: Yes, when we reach Amendment No. 41 a Division will be possible, once it has been formally moved.

Mr. Grimond: Further to that point of order. Of course I do not dispute your ruling, Sir Myer, but would you investigate this situation? It is wholly unusual that the amendment which comes first in order on the Bill is not put at the head of the group. I have never heard of it happening before. Would you raise this matter to see whether there has not been a mistake?

The Deputy Chairman: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am advised that it has been done before, that it is not a new practice or a precedent which is being established tonight. One may sympathise with the point of view which has been expressed, but the selection has been made and one has to adhere to it. Nevertheless as I have said, a Division will be possible on Amendment No. 41.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 3, line 40, after 'may', insert:
',after consulting such local authorities as appear to him to be concerned,'.

We are dealing here with the making of a sea designation order. At present, the Bill does not provide for consultation with local authorities. Representations have been made to us by at least two local authorities, including Shetland. It is a point that had in any case occurred to me—that there should be something written in about consultation. Without going into the fishing question at the moment—perhaps I can return to that later—there is a general difficulty about consultation before an order is made.
There are, in the schedule about the making of an order, provisions which give certain rights of representation and the rest, but there is a difficulty about writing in provisions about prior consultation. I take the view that the most important thing is that the local authorities concerned should have a statutory right to consultation. As well as representing their own interests, they can represent those of members of their local communities.
When I discussed this matter with the Shetland authority it took the view that, if consultation with the local authority were included in the Bill, it would see that the interests of fishermen were covered in any representations that it made to the Government. I think that that covers the right hon. Gentleman's point, if not directly at least indirectly. I would rest on that at the moment, and deal with other points about consultation which may be raised on the other amendments that we are discussing.
We have used the formula, "any local authority appearing to the Secretary of State to be concerned". Our intention is that we will consult planning authorities whose areas include or adjoin the proposed designated sea area and any other authorities likely to experience significant effects as a result of operations in that area. For example, it might be a district authority that has a harbour which is likely to be used by service boats operating in the designated area, or a district authority within the Highland Region, and so on. We are not confining it to one particular authority but will try, by a process of local authority consultation, similarly to take account of local interests, which we would ask the local authority to take on board before talking to us about the proposed order.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: I am grateful to the Minister for his amendment. It is certainly a step forward that he intends to consult the local authorities. The Shetland authority will indeed be grateful to him for taking note of its representations. I think that all other local authorities will also welcome this.
But I am not entirely satisfied. To begin with, there is already grave anxiety among the fishing communities about the effect of oil. It is a further source of all sorts of obstructions in the North Sea on valuable fishing grounds. It is all too likely to result in pollution. It may well interfere with normal fishing. For instance, the appearance of large tankers and so on, let alone the oil rigs which will be about in the area, is an entirely new and hazardous development. Already, therefore, fishermen are worried and, to some extent, handicapped by oil.
I find, in addition, that the Bill has aroused considerable concern among fishermen because, like many other people, they do not know how it will be operated. They fear the result of this designation of sea areas. They are frightened that their fishing will be curtailed. From a chart of the North Sea one can appreciate the large areas which are already unfit for fishing because the bottom is unsuitable, because there are wrecks and obstructions of all sorts or because certain areas are excluded by the Admiralty. One can see that the fishable areas of the North Sea adjacent to Shetland and other parts of the coast of Scotland are not nearly as big as people think.
We are talking about inshore fishermen who have no opportunity of sailing far out to sea in search of new grounds. These designation areas have caused a great deal of anxiety. No doubt local authorities will be able, up to a point, to represent the fishermen's point of view. But, after all, the fishermen have their own associations. I can see no reason why, on a matter as important as this— it is an extremely new and important departure—the Secretary of State should not consult the fishing associations through the accredited representatives of the fishermen.
8.30 p.m.
It is not only the Shetland local authority which will be concerned. In Orkney, too, the same situation arises, as

it does in other parts of the North of Scotland. There are the general fishing associations, and most of them have local branches which are particularly well-informed about the detailed situation as it affects them. It is this aspect which is very often important.
Bearing in mind the anxiety in the fishing communities and the dangers which they think they will suffer from oil in general under this new procedure, and the handicaps which have been imposed on them by oil to some extent, the Minister should at least say that he will consult the fishing representatives as well as local authorities before he designates an area.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I am grateful to the Minister for his amendment and the assurances that he will consult local authorities. I should like to advise him that the fishing industry certainly in my constituency, would not consider it adequate to have its views put by the local authorities, however excellent and well-meaning those local authorities are. The fishermen want to put their own viewpoint. I agree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) about that. This is something that affects the livelihood of fishermen so much that it would be quite wrong not to afford them this opportunity. There is certainly time for doing that.
I get a slight impression from the Minister that he has underestimated the importance of the possible effects of the Bill, and particularly this clause, on the fishing industry. Certainly he has misjudged the feelings of deep unease and doubt which the Bill and the clause have aroused, and particularly the feelings which the whole oil-related industry perpetually arouses in the minds of fishermen.
Fishermen are very quick to be suspicious. Even where their fears are groundless, they are certainly strongly held. No doubt other hon. Members will comment in the way in which the Bill affects other interests and authorities— harbour authorities, and so on, but I want to put on record the shock—indeed, almost disbelief—that has been expressed to me by the Scottish Trawlers' Federation at not having been consulted about the clause at any time, by any Government Department, prior to the publication of the Bill.
It may be that some of the federation's fears—certainly not all of them—would prove to be groundless, but it was certainly an extraordinary omission not to have consulted the industry at all about the clause, which so closely affects fishermen's livelihoods. The effect of the clause as it stands, and even with the amendment, could be to remove the rights of fishing in certain areas from those who have traditionally held those rights and who depend for their livelihood upon the exercise of those rights.
At present, the fishing industry is under the impression that the designation of a sea area can be made—gravely damaging their interest—without their being afforded an adequate opportunity to comment on a matter which affects them so closely. This must be wrong, and it must be changed. I suggest that Amendment No. 41, in the names of some of my hon. Friends, would remedy these problems.
As regards the effect of the clause's proposed powers on the inshore fleet, its representatives must be consulted before the sea areas affecting them are designated. It is likely that not only the inshore fishermen will be involved; it must be remembered that although the present limit of territorial waters of the United Kingdom is set at three miles there is every indication that this limit will be extended to 12 miles following next year's Law of the Sea Conference. If that happened there would still be a very real objection on the part of the trawling fleet, as well as the others already mentioned by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), to the possibility of being denied the right to fish in many of the valuable areas lying between three miles and 12 miles from the Scottish mainland and islands.
The Scottish fishermen's experience of consultation with the previous Conservative Government, the present Government and individual oil companies, has not been entirely happy. The new general consultation arrangements are an improvement, but I do not regard the Bill as affording the industry the protection it needs to preserve its vital interests in areas which the Secretary of State may wish to designate. Members of the fishing industry agree with me. It is vital that provisions should be incorporated in the

Bill requiring the appropriate Government Department to consult fishing interests and other authorities affected and to require the Secretary of State to take proper public and accountable regard to the views which the representatives of those interests and authorities submit.
If the Minister of State does not accept the Opposition amendment, we warn him that we shall press it to a Division.

Mr. Iain MacCormick: We welcome the Government's move in regard to Amendment No. 35.
The major sea area in which these installations are likely to be constructed lies off the coast of Argyll. Many planning applications are already being considered. One planning application in respect of the Loch Fyne area has been rejected by the county council. This is an important point when we consider this part of the Bill.
We have sought also to amend Clause 4, which relates to the granting of licences. We feel, as does the Argyll County Council, that if the harbour authorities are to be consulted when licences are granted, there is no reason why local authorities should not also be consulted. In certain important respects, especially as regards the landlocked coastal areas, local authorities have more sway than the harbour authorities. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the amendment.

Sir John Gilmour: The Government amendment provides that the local authorities shall be consulted. I should like to reinforce what has been said about consulting fishing interests. My recollection of the Shetland County Council Bill is that the county council agreed it was necessary to have consultations with the fishing industry, and it put that provision into its Bill.
I should like the Minister to tell me whether it is possible that the county council might draw considerable revenue out of a designated sea area in which tankers could moor. That might happen in the Shetland Islands, where tankers waiting to go into Sullom Voe may have to moor in some of the other bays and inlets of the islands. It would be possible for the county council to charge considerable fees. There seems to be some doubt as to exactly what the rights are in that respect.
I know that considerable interest has been expressed by persons living in the Firth of Forth, where, normally, three or four large tankers are anchored in Largo Bay waiting to proceed to Rotterdam, and where, recently, oil has been transferred from one tanker to another at sea, with all the attendant risks of pollution.
There might easily be a confusion of interests between the county council— which might be drawing money from dues levied on tankers moored in the bay—and the local fishing communities which would normally be fishing in that area.
I hope that the Minister can give some reassurances on these matters.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: I must add my voice to those which have been raised in support of the rights of the fishing industry. On several occasions in past months I have been in touch with Ministers at the Department of Energy about the difficulties encountered by fishermen as a result of oil operations which result in large bits of rubbish being dumped in the sea by the oil people and by developers, causing fishermen to be subjected to additional hazards, when the job that they do is difficult enough as it is.
No fisherman in my constituency will regard consultation with the local authority as any substitute for consultation with the oil industry, and the Minister should be sensitive to this requirement on the part of fishermen. They are a special community and they have their own attitudes and views—especially the inshore fishermen. They would feel that their interests were being neglected if the Minister could not find some way of having separate consultations with them.
When fishermen read, for example, that the Secretary of State may declare a part of the sea to be a designated area, the inference which they draw is that they are to be driven out of more and more areas of the sea and that the Government are handing over everything to the oil developers and neglecting the fishing community. I do not accuse the Minister of that, but he must reassure the Committee and the fishing community that a proper way will be found to consult

fishermen to discover their views, just as much as he proposes to consult local authorities.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I, too, wish to add my voice to the worries expressed about the amendment. There is no doubt that it is very important for the North-East of Scotland, both in the short term and in the years ahead longer-term that both the fishing industry and the oil industry are allowed to live, and to live together. That factor makes it very important, in a Bill of this kind, to deal with harbours shared by both industries and to ensure that every precaution is taken so that nothing of irremediable damage is done to either industry.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give the assurance asked for from the Opposition side of the Committee.

Mr. Monro: This may be a small clause, but it is of immense importance to the fishing industry. All fishermen will find it inexplicable that the Government appear so inflexible on what is an extremely important matter. They will not understand why the Minister cannot accept a very reasonable request for consultation—[Interruption.] Ministers are champing away on the Treasury Bench. I hope that they will allow me to develop my argument.
The Minister of State has moved an amendment, which of course we will accept. We are glad that he has made this tiny step forward. But he must have realised from what was said on Second Reading, and from amendments which have been on the Notice Paper for several days now, that those interested in fishing in Scotland will not regard his attitude as reasonable. With the intuition expected of any Minister in the Scottish Office, he must know that he is not going anything like far enough to make the position acceptable to the Committee and that he will have to move much further forward if he is to avoid a Division on the amendment.
In moving his amendment, the Minister said that there were safeguards in the schedule. I agree with my hon. Friends that they are inadequate. It is essential to write into the Bill some provision for consultations with the fishing associations. I go as far as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), because I believe that there should also


be consultations with local branches of fishing associations.
There is never too much information to be gained from consultations. The more we have, the better. Consultations may take time, but it must not be forgotten that we are dealing with people's livelihoods for generations to come. I hope that the Minister will agree that there should be consultations with all the associations, especially the Scottish Trawlers' Federation, the Fishermen's Federation and the Inshore White Fish Producers. He really must appreciate that they are concerned not only about breeding grounds, inshore fishing, lobsters, shellfish, and so on, but about the question of navigation.
8.45 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) has mentioned the possibility of a change in territorial waters which all of us would welcome, but the hon. Gentleman must accept that fishermen are worried about obstructions on the sea and perhaps under the sea if these designation orders are made. Not only are fishermen, whom we are talking about tonight, interested; many others are interested in sea angling, and they have a right to be heard as well. It will be interesting to see whether the Minister, in replying, will give some indication of the position regarding compensation if these sea designation orders come into operation.
There is a further aspect of these orders in relation to sport and recreation. This may be covered, but I do not think it is adequately covered by the amendment which the hon. Gentleman has moved and which, of course, we shall accept. It may be that he will interrupt important waters that are used by yachting, cruising and canoe clubs and many other forms of recreation, all of which are valuable. All of these interests should be heard, whether the Minister likes to go to the overall voice of the Scottish Sports Council or the Scottish Tourist Board. Certainly such a voice should be heard before a sea designation order is made.
What has been said by hon. Members of all three parties on the Opposition side of the Committee shows that there is very grave concern about this. Perhaps

the Minister of State will play a trump card, saying that there is no need for us to worry. We have heard that before. We want something written into the Bill covering all the issues that have been raised tonight. The Minister may have an answer. If so, let us hear it now; then we shall raise the question later if we do not like it.

Mr. Millan: The reason I am treating what the hon. Gentleman has said with a certain amount of amusement is that he is accusing me of being inflexible on all these matters when I have not said anything about them and have simply moved my amendment providing for consultation with local authorities—which all have said they very much welcome— before these orders are actually to be introduced. I have very considerable sympathy with the points that are being made. There is a genuine difficulty here, but it is not one that can be overcome just by writing in the kind of words that hon. Gentlemen have been pressing on me in these amendments.
I remind the Committee that the basic purpose of a sea designation order is to facilitate or control the execution of relevant operations. The fact is that without such an order many of these operations can take place at the present time, under no control whatsoever: so that by introducing the order we are not simply facilitating the offshore contractors' operations. In certain circumstances we shall be doing so, but we are also controlling them. So the basic purpose of a sea designation order is to afford protection as well as allowing operators to do what they have to do. Without a sea designation order and without the Bill many such activities could go on quite unchallenged.
Therefore I hope those who represent fishery as well as other interests will take care to tell the interests concerned that this is not directed in any way to reducing their rights or interests. The provision is designed to help control these operations and to help protect fishery and other interests.
Secondly, many of the points made by hon. Members are nothing to do with sea designation orders as such, but with the general impact which the oil industry has had on the North Sea, including the impact on trawler operations and the rest. There is no simple way of providing for


that, either in international law or in any other way. There are a number of provisions about dumping at sea which are also designed to help protect the fishery as well as other interests.
The Government have been very anxious to have provided a general forum in which the fishery interests on the one hand and the oil operators on the other could meet and discuss their common problems in a constructive attempt to overcome them, accepting that the oil operations in the North Sea, whether we like it or not, are bound to involve disturbance to fishermen. That cannot be completely avoided, but we have tried to avoid that which is avoidable and to provide a way in which the industries can talk to one another so that their difficulties can be kept to the minimum.
During the summer we set up the Fishing and Offshore Oil Consultative Committee, which includes representatives of the oil industry, the Trawlers' Federation, the inshore fishermen and Government Departments. A civil servant from the Scottish Office chairs its meetings. It has met twice and is meeting again in January to discuss, for example, subjects affecting navigation, the possible loss of fishing grounds, and the problems of oil gear being disposed of on the sea bed, thus affecting trawling. We have, therefore, provided the forum, and it has been welcomed by the fishing industry.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) thinks that I have been neglecting the fishing industry. He should know that I have met representatives of the industry to talk about these problems. I did so a considerable time ago. The industry is represented on the Oil Development Council as well, and I see its representatives there periodically. I do not want the impression to be given that we are not mindful of the needs of the fishing industry. The Government amendment providing for local authority consultation will in many circumstances allow the fishing interests to make their view clear before anything is published about a sea designation order at all.
The provisions in Schedule 3 provide for representations on the orders themselves, so that, again, it will be possible for points of view to be put to the Secretary of State before an order is introduced. So there are certain protection

provisions at present, but I am willing to look at the matter again. It may be that some of these things should be the subject of discussion, for example, by the consultative committee, although there is a difficulty there in that at present it is representative of the offshore industry rather than the onshore industry, which may be affected in orders.
I hope that the Opposition amendment will not be pressed in view of my assurance that I will look at the matter again to see whether we can put down an amendment on Report. There are three aspects within the terms of the Bill itself —the sea designation order, the licences under the order, and the regulations. Government Amendment No. 155 deals with the regulations in Clause 6, and one of the matters which will be covered by regulation is the protection of fishing in any sea designation order.
I hope that that will give the assurance that we have a genuine interest in meeting these problems. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Government are mindful of the problems and are at least making some improvement in the Bill to meet them. If the amendments are withdrawn I shall consider whether we should put anything else in the Bill or make general provision through the consultative committee. If what we propose is not acceptable, or if we find that something further specifically written into the Bill is not desirable, hon. Members will be free, with permission, to return to the matter on Report. I hope that that will be acceptable.

Mr. Monro: After the mild hilarity from the Government Front Bench before the Minister spoke I expected a great deal more to come by way of a trump card to reduce our concern. What the Minister has said in no way allays our fears about what could happen through a sea designation order.
The Minister has talked about consultations with the fishing industry. If he reads the correspondence from the federation representing Scottish trawling about the lack of consultation between his Government and the federation he will realise that matters do not bode well for the future. It may be that he has set up a consultative committee, but that has not in any way encouraged the fishing industry to feel that it is being looked after. The


Minister has said that he is mindful of the situation and that he is prepared to give it further consideration. That is not a firm enough proposition for me to accept.
I expect that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) will want to have the last word. In normal circumstances his amendment would have been called first. Unless the Minister is prepared to say tonight that he will definitely on Report table an amendment that will make it necessary to consult those involved in fishing I have no intention of abandoning our amendment. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will support us as we would have supported him had his amendment been called first.
That is our position. If the Minister likes to give a firm assurance now and to make the matter crystal clear I shall have pleasure in not pressing our amendment, but I shall do so unless he comes forward with a positive assurance.

Amendment agreed to

Further amendment made: No. 36, in page 3, line 41, leave out' be a designated area' and insert:
'to be a designated sea area '.—[Mr. Millan.]

[Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I teg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 4, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) No order under subsection 1 above shall be made unless a draft of the order has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament'.

The Deputy Chairman: With it, it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 139, in Clause 3, page 4, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
'No order shall take effect until approved by affirmative resolutions by each House of Parliament.'
No. 39, in Clause 3, page 4, line 2, leave out from ' be' to end of line 3 and insert:
'laid in draft in each House of Parliament and not take effect until such draft shall have been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament'.

Mr. Wilson: Our discussion on this amendment will be almost a repetition of our earlier debate except that this time the Government have not seen fit to table their own amendment to bring in the affirmative resolution procedure. Unless the amendment is carried, only the negative resolution procedure will be available, and considerable feeling has been voiced on that score in our earlier debates.
I should like to hear from the Minister why the Government have not tabled an amendment in similar terms to their earlier amendment before I decide whether to press my amendment.

Mr. Grimond: I do not want to delay the Minister from informing the Committee why he has not provided for the affirmative resolution procedure in this case. The main arguments in favour of that procedure have already been given. There is a feeling that the fishing industry is the poor relation. It is difficult to understand why the affirmative resolution procedure should be applied to the land and not to the sea. The industry would draw confidence from having the affirmative resolution procedure in this case. It would give associations and individuals a much better chance of making their representations, and, therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to meet us on this point as he did earlier.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The debate about the fishing interests on the last amendment showed what a very serious business it will be to make a sea designation order. We hope, therefore, that the Government will assure the Committee that they take the matter very seriously. It is important for the Government to act positively in these decisions, particularly since the Bill will give the Secretary of State the power to declare a part of the sea to be a designated area if it appears to him desirable under the relevant provisions of the Bill.
These are wide-ranging powers and they should be subject to restrictive scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament. Will the Minister explain in what circumstances these powers may be introduced, and precisely how the Government justify the Secretary of State's being able to designate a part of the sea in this way?

Mr. Millan: I take the point that there is a parallel between this case and Clause 1, where we were dealing with the expedited acquisition order. We felt that perhaps an expedited acquisition raised points of principle to which the Committee would attach more importance than those which would be raised in a designation order. I do not mean by that that the sea designation order is not a most important procedure, but I think that hon. Members feel that compulsory purchase touches on the principles behind private rights and that it raises special issues which make the affirmative resolution procedure relevant to that case.
If the sea designation order were transferred to the affirmative resolution procedure it would incur the same disabilities in the House of Lords as will be incurred by the expedited acquisition. Any delay would not basically inconvenience the offshore oil operators, but it would prevent the Government imposing necessary control of the area under the licensing provisions, the conditions attached to the licences, and so on, which would follow from the sea designation order being proceeded with. The delay could be detrimental to the interests of the local community and to the fishing interests.
Therefore, if we introduce an affirmative procedure we should again wish to disapply the standing orders of the other place. I may as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb. I shall be unpopular with the House of Lords anyway for what we intend to do under the other amendment.
I do not want to give a commitment now, because I should like to consider the matter also in relation to the previous debate about the fishing interests. It may well be that to provide an affirmative order would be to put in another bit of procedure which would allow the fishery case to be deployed in the debate here and in the other place on the order. It may be that one of the solutions to the fisheries point will be to have the affirmative procedure but with the disapplication provision.
I make it clear that, as on the previous amendment, I do not want to give a precise commitment, and I do not want to inhibit hon. Members from returning

to the matter on report. But on the basis I have outlined I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: On the understanding that the Minister will reconsider the matter, without formal commitment on his part to take any action on it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

LICENCES IN RELATION TO OPERATIONS IN DESIGNATED SEA AREAS

Sir John Gilmour: I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 4, line 9, at end insert:
'(2) The particulars of operations to be carried out under such a licence must have been advertised 21 days prior to the granting of the licence'.
Clause 3 gave the Secretary of State power to create a designated sea area. The amendment seeks to ensure that when a licence is granted notification will be given of the exact nature of the work to be undertaken. It is essential that local interests should know that.
Among the things that may have to take place in a designated sea area are dredging operations to facilitate the passage of larger ships, blasting of rock and so on, which might have a considerable effect on the fishing industry. It is reasonable that the local people interested should be given notice.

Mr. Dalyell: What is the Government's thinking on whether the period should be 21 days rather than 14 or 28 days? This is worthy of explanation.

Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friend ought to address his question to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), who moved the amendment, because this is an Opposition amendment, not a Government amendment. In any event, I do not think that the point that my hon. Friend raises has anything to do with the matter now being considered. The question of 21 days or 28 days was discussed previously in another connection, and we are now concerned with a different matter.
The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) suggested that the operations to be carried out under licence ought to be advertised. The normal reason for requiring public advertisements in such cases is to enable the public to make an objection if they wish, as applies, for example, in planning matters. But it is not suggested by the hon. Gentleman that there should be an opportunity for the public to object to any of the works that would be carried out under the licence. Therefore, it would be a question merely of informing the public of the works to be carried out, rather than of telling them about some right which they could exercise. In that context, the need for advertising might be a little less clear.
The Committee should understand that the licence is intended to be a protection to the public because the Secretary of State will have control over what the licensees will be able to do. It involves the same principle as in the sea designation order. If the Government did not intervene, make controls and have powers over all the operators, the public would be left unprotected. This should not be seen as an invasion of public rights, but rather as a control which ought to be exercised in the public interest.
One difficulty which might be encountered if we adopted the suggestion in the amendment would arise from the fact that the Secretary of State may vary or revoke a licence at any time if conditions are breached. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a useful provision to have. But the question would arise whether such variation or revocation would have to be advertised. If it was necessary to inform the public of operations to be carried out, the public might have to be informed again if there was to be a variation of those operations.
I understand what the hon. Gentleman means by his amendment, but we have to strike a balance here, and we must ask whether it is necessary in the circumstances to go to this trouble. I am not in principle opposed to what the hon. Gentleman suggests. The amendment, for drafting reasons, is technically defective. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would indicate whether he wants to press the matter.

Sir John Gilmour: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary. Perhaps I should have gone further when moving the amendment and said that when the licence was issued and the matter was advertised there should be a right to object. I felt that if no one knows what work is to be done under the licence mysteries may build up as to what is the object of the exercise. We may return to this point later when considering Schedule 3, which includes provisions about the making of designation areas. But if a licence is granted and any local interested party learns, for instance, that there is to be blasting of rocks between two islands somewhere on the West Coast of Scotland, or near Orkney or Shetland, he would feel aggrieved if he did not know about this in the first place. If local interests can be carried in such matters, people would understand the necessity for carrying out the works, the approval of local people would be secured, and this would help the general objective.
I admit that possibly the wording in the amendment is not correct from a drafting point of view. But if the Minister can give an assurance that he is prepared to look at this and give information about what the licences are intended to do, it would go a long way towards winning the good will of the people concerned. The Minister will appreciate that in many cases the works take place in out of the way areas, not in places where such operations have been occurring daily in the past. Such works are an innovation, and people need reassurance.

Mr. John Smith: Perhaps I might respond by saying that there is a reluctance by the Government to put too many requirements of this sort into an Act of Parliament. What the hon. Gentleman says about informing the public is absolutely right. The more that the public know, the more they will under-staid both the nature of the operations and the need for them, and they might be prepared to tolerate inconvenience where it arises. Whether it is necessary to do that by statutory provision is another matter. It is a question of judgment as to how far we are prepared to pepper our Acts of Parliament with statutory provisions to this effect.
9.15 p.m.
Perhaps I can leave it on the basis that we will look at this again. It may be


that the best way of dealing with this would be for the Secretary of State to ask licensees to take the trouble to inform local people what they are doing, without the necessity of a statutory obligation. Since the hon. Gentleman thinks it is important to press the manner we will consider it.

Sir John Gilmour: In view of what the hon. Gentleman says, and the fact that I wholly agree that we might look at this again when we discuss Schedule 3, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 41, in page 4, line 9, at end insert:
' (2) Where it appears that, as a result of the granting of such a licence, public or private rights of navigation or fishery or other public or private rights on the sea or sea bed in the designated sea area to which the licence relates may be prejudiced, the Secretary of State shall, before granting such licence, consult with those, or with appropriate organisations of those, whose rights may be so prejudiced'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The Committee divided: Ayes 143, Noes 176.

Division No. 27.]
AYES
[19.20 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Grist, Ian
Parkinson, Cecil


Aitken, J. W. P.
Grylls, Michael
Pattie, Geoffrey


Arnold, Tom
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Penhaligon, David


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Percival, Ian


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Harrison, Sir Harwood (Eye)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Banks, Robert
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Reid, George


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Hayhoe, Barney
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Benyon, W. R.
Henderson, Douglas
Rifkind, Malcolm


Biffen, John
Hicks, Robert
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff N.W.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Holland, Philip
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Bowden, Andrew (Brighton)
Hooson, Emlyn
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Brotherton, Michael
Hunt, John
Shelton, William (Lambeth St.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Shepherd, Colin


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Sims, Roger


Buck, Antony
James, David
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Bulmer, Esmond
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Burden, F. A.
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Speed, Keith


Carlisle, Mark
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Spence, John


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Spicer, James (W. Dorset)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, S)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Spicer, Michael (S.Worcester)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lane, David
Sproat, lain


Cockcroft, John
Lawrence, Ivan
Stainton, Keith


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lo Marchant, Spencer
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cope, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Cormack, Patrick
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Corrie, John
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Stokes, John


Costaln, A. P.
Luce, Richard
Stradling Thomas, J.


Crawford, D.
MacCormick, lain
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Macfarlane, Neil
Taylor, Teddy (Glasgow C.)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
MacGregor, John
Tebbit, Norman


Durant, Tony
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Temple-Morris, P.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Mates, Michael
Thompson, George


Elliott, Sir William
Mather, Carol
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (Devon)


Eyre, Reginald
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mayhew, Patrick
Viggers, P. J.


Farr, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Fell, Anthony
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Wall Patrick


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Warren Kenneth


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Monro, Hector
Weatherill Bernard


Fookes, Miss Janet
Morrison, Peter (Chester)
Welsh Andrew


Fry, Peter
Mudd, David
Wilson, Gordon(Dundee E.)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Nelson, Anthony
Young Sir George (Ealing)


Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Neubert, Michael
Yonnger, Hon George


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Newton, Tony



Gray, Hamish
Osborn, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grieve, Percy
Page, John (Harrow West)
Dr. Gerard Vaughan and


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Pardoe, John
Mr. Fred Silvester




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Bidwell, Sydney
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P.)


Anderson, Donald
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Campbell, Ian


Archer, Peter
Boardman, H.
Cartwright, John


Armstrong, Enrest
Booth, Albert
Clemitson, I. M.


Ashton, Joe
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S.)


Atkinson, Norman
Bradley, Tom
Coleman, Donald


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow Pr.)
Concannon, J. D.


Bates, Alf
Buchan, Norman
Conlan, Bernard


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Buchanan, Richard
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)




Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Prescott, John


Cox, Thomas (Wands, Toot)
Janner, Greville
Radice, Giles


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow M.)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cryer, Bob
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh.)
Johnson, James (Kingston, W.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rodgers, William (Teesside)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rooker, J. W.


Deakins, Eric
Kaufman, Gerald
Roper, John


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kelley, Richard
Rosa, Paul B.


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Kerr, Russell
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)


Dempsey, James
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Doig, Peter
Kinnock, Neil
Sedgemore, B.


Dormand, Jack
Lamond, James
Selby, Harry


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Short, Rt Hon Edward (Newcastle C)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N.)
Sillars, James


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Skinner, Dennis


Dunnett, Jack
Lomas, Kenneth
Small, William


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Loyden, Eddie
Smith, John (N. Lanarkshire)


Edge, Geoffrey
Luard, Evan
Snape, Peter


Edwards, Robert (Wolv. S.E.)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Spearing, Nigel


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Spriggs, Leslie


English, Michael
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Stallard, A. W.


Evans, loan L. (Aberdare)
McCartney, Hugh
Stewart, Rt Hn Michael (H'smith, F)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McElhone, Frank
Stoddart, David


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C.)
Stott, Roger


Flannery, Martin
McNamara, Kevin
Strang, Gavin


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Madden, Max
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Ford, Ben T.
Magee, Bryan
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester)
Tierney, Sydney


George, Bruce
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tomlinson, John


Golding, John
Meacher, Michael
Urwin, T. W.


Gould, Bryan
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Gourlay, Harry
Mendelson, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V.)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Millan, Bruce
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Grant, John (Islington C.)
Miller, Dr M. (E. Kilbride)
Ward, Michael


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Moonman, Eric
Wellbeloved, James


Hamling, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
White, James (Glasgow, P)


Harper, Joseph
Murray, Ronald King
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Newens, Stanley
wise, Mrs Audrey


Hatton, Frank
Noble, Mike
Woodall, Alec


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Oakes, Gordon
Woof, Robert


Heffer, Eric S.
O'Halloran, Michael
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hooley, Frank
Orbach, Maurice
Young, David (Bolton E.)


Horam, John
Ovenden, John



Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)
Park, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Parry, Robert
Mr. James Hamilton and


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N.)
Pendry, Tom
 Mr. Laurie Pavitt

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 42, in page 4, line 16, after 'works', insert:
in the designated sea area'.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 43, in page 4, line 23, at end insert:
'and the authority shall be the sole authority to grant any licence or permission for relevant operations within its own area'.

The Deputy Chairman: With this amendment, it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 44, in page 4, line 24, leave out subsection (4).
No. 47, in page 4, line 31, leave out
'and sections 5 to 7 of this Act'.
No. 48, in page 4, line 35, leave out from ' accordingly ' to end of line 37.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The amendment seeks to clarify the clause. I admit that I have become slightly confused about the clause, not so much as to its meaning but as to its outcome. In certain operations in some areas confusion could arise as to which authority would grant a licence.
The present situation is that the Secretary of State is to issue a licence for relevant operations executed within a designated sea area. Subsection (3), which deals with a designated area, appears to envisage a situation in which an area overlaps or contains part of another area which lies within the jurisdiction of a harbour authority where that authority has power to grant licences or permission to those who want to carry out operations. As the provision now reads, it appears that the authority remains entitled to take such action, but it also appears that the Secre-taiy of State may also grant licences for


these operations. Provision is also made for consultation with the harbour authority.
I seek to avoid a situation in which both the Secretary of State and the relevant harbour authority have the power to issue a licence in a sea area. I wonder whether such an arrangement is sensible. I should like only one licensing authority to deal with the matter.
It may be asked, "In a designated area, part of which falls within the jurisdiction of a harbour authority, how will it be possible to achieve certain conditions in relation to operations carried out within that area?" That is a possible objection to my argument.
9.30 p.m.
The Secretary of State must consult the harbour authority, anyway. I hope that he will not dictate to the authority, but will use his persuasive powers, just as the Under-Secrctary has used his very persuasive powers, to get us to accept assurances that he has given and withdraw certain amendments. In most instances, we, for our part, have been very generous in accepting those assurances. This is another instance in which the Secretary of State might consider using his charm. I suggest that the harbour authority should have the power to issue licences or permission for operations to be carried out and that the Secretary of State should use his persuasive charm on the authority, if necessary.
The amendment would simplify the matter. It would mean that we should have one authority, and not two, in these limited areas.
I am trying to be helpful. I hope that the Under-Secretary will receive the amendment in a helpful spirit. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

Mr. John Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) for the way in which he has moved the amendment. I understand that this set of amendments was put down to ascertain the Government's approach to the problem.
The clause has a more evocative meaning for hon. Members on this side of the Committee than for the

Opposition. It has caused great difficulty of interpretation in other situations. One might have anticipated that if there was to be confusion, it would be in this clause.
The hon. Gentleman has explained the purpose of the clause extremely lucidly. I suggest that if anyone wishes to understand it he should read in HANSARD what the hon. Gentleman said.
The hon. Gentleman put his finger on the difficulty that arises when a sea designation area overlaps the jurisdiction of a harbour authority. There are a number of solutions to that problem. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the harbour authority should be the sole authority in that situation. That also presents difficulties. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman not only lucidly explained the purpose of the clause; he also explained the objection that I was minded to make to the provision that he suggested.
Perhaps I could leave the matter in this way: we appreciate the problem. It would be hopeless if the Secretary of State and a harbour authority were at odds in the matter. As there will be consultations between them, we expect that they will work closely together. There is no intention on the part of the Secretary of State to override and overrule in a domineering way the jurisdiction of a harbour authority. There is no complete solution to the problem. It can be resolved only in a commonsense way, with both parties working together.
I hope that with that assurance the hon. Gentleman will feel that his lucid explanation has not been in vain.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I suppose that my explanation was not in vain if anyone required the clause to be explained. However, it is unfortunate that, after our trying to understand the clause, and the Under-Secretary having gone into it and pointed out a small difficulty that could arise, despite my lucidity, the amendment will not be accepted.
I did not and do not regard this as a matter of principle. I am pleased that the difficulty that I foresaw when drafting the amendment is realised by the Government. Equally, in my normally fair and equable way, I accept that the amendment could lead to other difficulties. In


those circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have one point which follows from the last amendment but applies to the whole clause. What consultations have taken place with harbour authorities already in Scotland in relation to the workings of the Bill? Obviously, particularly in relation to this clause, harbour authorities are very much involved in certain areas. On the West Coast of Scotland, where many of these provisions are likely to apply, in most cases the local authority will be the harbour authority and will be consulted in other respects anyway. What I am much more concerned about are those cases in which the harbour authority is separate from the local authority, as is often the case in Orkney and Shetland. I should be interested to know how often this is likely to arise in areas affected by the Bill, and what consultations have been held with these authorities on how these provisions will apply.

Mr. Gray: I have been asked by my local authority to say that it would always hope that the Secretary of State would consider the local authority the principal body to be consulted. I know that this places the Secretary of State in some difficulty, but he will probably find that local authorities throughout the country cherish their position very closely in this regard.
I hope that, despite the existence of harbour authorities, the local authority will be considered the primary body in these cases but that the Secretary of State will consider consulting other bodies as well. An example is river purification boards. If development took place in a firth, new piers could be created, and the river purification board would have an interest and could give the Secretary of State useful guidance. But local authorities are the primary bodies to be consulted, in my opinion.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) raises an important point. In another debate not so much confidence was placed on consul-

ing local authorities. The Government believe that in this instance the most appropriate authority when we are dealing with the jurisdiction of a harbour is the harbour authority. Where a local authority is the harbour authority, both bodies would of course be consulted.
We think that the harbour authority is the most important body to be consulted and that is why it has been given this statutory right. Of course, giving a statutory right to one authority does not mean that the Secretary of State should not bear in mind other interests as well, and, where that is suitable, they can be consulted.

Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman probably knows that there is a dilemma in my constituency between the Invergordon Port authority and the Ross and Cromarty planning authority, because there is some doubt in a particular situation as to which is the authority below the low water mark. Counsel's opinion is being consulted at present. It is worth mentioning, because the two authorities could conflict.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on a difficult point of Scottish planning law—the extent of the jurisdiction of planning authorities when one reaches the low water mark. However, if we debated this complex matter we should be here for some time and it would not be of great interest to the majority of hon. Members. I think it right to constitute the harbour authority as the statutory authority to be consulted, but I bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) raised questions about the consultations which might take place under Clause 4. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State ought to consult the body which has been described in the Bill— namely, the harbour authority. I think that that, perhaps, may meet his point. But I am afraid that I have forgotten some of the detail of the other points that he made. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would refresh my memory.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I was asking what consultation had already taken place in relation to the terms of the Bill with harbour authorities, and particularly with those which are not local authorities.


Second, in areas in which this building is most likely to take place, which we understand will be mostly on the west coast, I was asking how many specifically harbour authorities, as opposed to local authorities, are involved.

Mr. Smith: The direct answer to the question is that the matter has been discussed informally with the Clyde Port authority, which might conceivably be involved in some of the areas to be designated. The other harbour authorities have not been consulted. There are a great number of them in Scotland. It would not be very productive, perhaps, to go around them all with the Bill and the proposals. The matter will arise when the Secretary of State comes to consider whether a sea designation order ought to be made and whether licences ought to be issued. Those authorities will be consulted. However, the hon. Gentleman's point has been noted and will be borne in mind when the clause is operating.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

TERMS AND EFFECT, ETC. OF LICENCES UNDER SECTION 4

Mr. John Corrie: I beg to move, Amendment No. 50, in page 4, line 41, leave out from 'operation ' to second ' which ' in line 42 and insert:
'(which must be within the designated sea area to which the licence relates)'.
We on the Opposition side of the Committee would like to know why it is necessary to allow a person to operate outside a designated sea area having specifically been given a licence to operate within a designated sea area. What sort of operation will take place outwith the area to which the licence relates? How far outside the area can operations take place? Are they unlimited in distance? Does this mean that operations could take place in the seas around the coast which were anywhere near a designated sea area? Could this be one mile, five miles, or 20 miles away from that area?
Subsection (1) states that

No relevant operations shall be executed in a designated sea area unless the person responsible for the operations is authorised to execute them by a licence granted by the Secretary of State under this section.
Is the "person" in that subsection the only person who could carry out operations outside the designated sea area, or could anyone operate outside that area?
Basically, we want to know why an area should be designated at all if the person holding the licence can operate outside it. We feel, as the amendment states, that operations should take place only within the designated area.

Mr. John Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for moving the amendment. I think that I interpret him correctly in saying that it is a probing amendment which seeks to find out what is behind the Government's thinking.
The effect of the amendment would be to restrict the application of licence conditions to the designated sea area itself. It is desirable that these conditions should also be able to apply to shore operations directly connected with the sea-based relevant operations and to the towing of marine structures to and from the designated sea area.
Operations for the assembly of structures in the sea are bound to give rise to shore operations for supply, and possibly prefabrication of components. These operations could have an effect on shore communities through traffic, noise or dust. They could, however, escape normal planning control if they last for less than 28 days in the same place in any one year.
9.45 p.m.
The Secretary of State should therefore, if it is thought necessary, have the power to regulate these ancillary operations through licence conditions.
It is not expected that designated sea areas will cover wide tracts of sea, and towing of platforms and other structures will inevitably take place outside the designated areas. Unless the Secretary of State is able to impose conditions on the conduct of these towing operations, they will be governed only by the international rules for the prevention of collisions at sea, which regulate safety but would not do anything to minimise the inconvenience to other users of the sea caused when the tow cuts across ferry routes or through


fishing grounds. If the Secretary of State can regulate towing by licence conditions, he can ensure that minimum disruption is caused.
That explanation may convince the hon. Gentleman that we are not up to anything sinister in this case. We are trying to extend the rights and protection of the community.

Mr. Corrie: I thank the Minister for that reply. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 51, in page 5, line 12, leave out subsection (3).

The Deputy Chairman: With this amendment, we are to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 140, in page 5, line 15, leave out' or fishery'.
Amendment No. 141, in page 5, line 16, after 'bed', insert:
'or private rights of fishing other than tidal rights'.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This is a probing amendment to ascertain why the Government are seeking to put into effect a provision whereby no action can lie in respect of any interference with public or private rights in relation to a licence having been granted. I can understand that there are obvious difficulties in relation to certain public rights. Indeed, I have discussed this point with the Minister. There are tremendous problems in assessing compensation, and I can appreciate that there are difficulties in relation to them.
I am concerned about private rights, which can much more easily be established, which are more easily attributable, and which may greatly affect the livelihood of individuals. It would be unfortunate if their right to take action were removed by this subsection, although there may be a very good reason for this.
I put this point forward in a probing sense. I should like the hon. Gentleman to explain how he sees this working, why the Government approach the matter in this way, and whether the hon. Gentleman sees any risk of an individual in

particular, or even of a group of people, such as fishermen, who have a public right to fish in the sea, suffering as a result of the operating of this subsection. That is the burden of my remarks.
If I may have an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that no one is likely to suffer in any way as a result of the operation of this subsection, I shall probably be satisfied, but I should like to hear a fuller explanation of the background and why the provision has been brought forward.

Mr. Grimond: I should like the Government to explain why they need what seems to me an extremely sweeping subsection.
My amendment deals with fisheries, but I have some sympathy with the amendment which seeks to strike out the subsection.
I am not very clear on the legal distinction between public and private rights. Not being a lawyer, I am unable to enter into that argument. The amendment appears to mean that if, in these areas, pollution arises from operations carried out in accordance with the licence, no one shall have any right of redress. Is that so? I can imagine a situation where fishing rights might be severely affected by pollution. Would the fishermen have no right of redress? Why should they not have rights?
I move on now to my well-known topic, udal rights. After a great deal of effort, I managed to get the Lord Advocate in the Conservative Government mildly educated in udal rights. He even amended a Bill in respect of them.
Udal rights have been guaranteed to the people of Orkney and Shetland ever since they left Scandinavia. Assuming that what is really aimed at is riparian rights, my second amendment goes as far as to keep them within the subsection, but I do not see why all udal rights should be swept away. There may be all sorts of obstructions causing hazards at sea and all kinds of pollution taking place from operations which could be said to be carried on in accordance with a licence, yet fishermen would have no rights of redress.
Once again, I emphasise that the fishing communities are of the greatest importance in Shetland and of considerable


importance in Orkney. I shall be glad to hear why the subsection is necessary in these wide terms and what its effect will be.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: This subsection conflicts entirely with the following one. The Bill appears to say in one subsection that if a person has such an order, no one can bring an action to recover damages against him, whereas the following subsection suggests that a person is liable to pay damages where damage is done. It may be that, because of the peculiarities of the law, the two sentiments are not in conflict. But what worries me is that if a private right is interfered with, it may be possible for the person to whom a licence is given to write to the inquirer saying, "You will see from Clause 5(3) that I have no liability ", because it seems from the following subsection that provision is made for liability and that in the event of a dispute the parties may go to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. Perhaps the Minister can explain the apparent conflict between subsections (3) and (4).
It is fair to point out that subsection (4) refers only to private rights, whereas subsection (3) refers to public and private rights. But it seems to me that there is a great danger that subsection (3) might be used by a licence holder to write to any inquirer saying, "If you read subsection (3), you will see that I have no liability," but not to draw attention to subsection (4), which appears to conflict with it.

Mr. Millan: The two subsections are not inconsistent or contradictory. We have first to make a distinction between, for example, an action of interdict against the licensee and the question of compensation. If we provide, as we do in the Bill, for a framework of sea designation orders and if, as a consequence, the Secretary of State gives a licence to an operator to operate within the area concerned, it will be quite absurd if that licensee carrying on activities in accordance with the licence is to be subject to actions of interdict and the rest of it by people who feel that their interests are being affected by the operation of the licence.
The fault is not that of the licensee. If he fails to meet the conditions of the licence, certain penalties are imposed upon

him. But we cannot have the additional penalty imposed upon him that he is subject to actions by private individuals even when he is legitimately carrying on his operations in accordance with the terms of the licence.

Mr. Grimond: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can clear up one point. As I read Section 3, if, for example, oil were to escape, which is highly likely, the licensee is apparently free from action under a sea designation order so long as the oil damages only fishing activities or boats within the area designated, but as soon as the oil goes beyond that area he will become liable to action, possibly.

Mr. Millan: May I first make the point that people talk rather loosely about its being highly likely that there will be oil pollution. There is no particular reason why someone who is finishing the final stages of a concrete platform should cause oil pollution, any more than anybody else engaged in any industrial activity. There is an association of ideas here which is misleading. That point has to be made.
There may be certain oil operations being carried on which would give rise to danger of pollution, and some of these are subject to penalties under existing law in any case. But they will also be subject to any penalties which may be provided for a breach of the conditions of the licence. The general proposition I am making is that, even if one gives a licence, a licensee who is carrying on his activity legitimately, in accordance with that licence, must not be subject to action by individuals who feel that they are being prejudiced by the operations of the licensee. That is not the right kind of remedy.
That does not mean, however, that we should not, or cannot, provide that where a right is interfered with, and is quite legitimately seen to be interfered with, and the damage suffered by a particular interest is calculable, compensation should not be paid. What subsection (4) says is that where a particular right is interfered with under the authority of subsection (3), in certain circumstances compensation is payable. Whether we have subsection (4) sufficiently wide to include all the circumstances in which hon. Members believe compensation might be payable is a matter to which


we shall come in the next group of amendments, but for the purpose of the present group of amendments I believe the subsection is necessary. Otherwise, the purpose of a sea designation order would be vitiated.
If it is generally necessary, for the reasons I have explained clearly, Amendments Nos. 140 and 141 are also inappropriate because they would seek to make certain exclusions which might in other circumstances—in questions of whether compensation should be payable—be matters that ought to be considered in that context but are not, to my mind, legitimate for exclusion under subsection (3). We shall come to compensation under the next group of amendments. I hope with that explanation in reasonably simple terms of what is a complicated matter—and I say this without being the least bit patronising towards hon. Gentlemen whose amendments have puzzled me considerably until explained in simple terms—hon. Members will not press this group of amendments.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. Certainly, it is now clearer why this provision should be included. Since we are coming on to discuss the question of compensation in the next group of amendments this might help also to answer some of the general points I have raised. Given the hon. Gentleman's explanation, I can perfectly understand that if this subsection were not included a licensee could be put at very severe risk in carrying out his operations. I personally accept that explanation and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Ordered,

That the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with at this days sitting, though opposed, until any hour.— [Mr Thomas Cox.]

Bill again considered in Committee.

[Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

Mr. Hamish Gray: I beg to move Amendment No. 52, in page 5, line 19, after 'a', insert 'public or'.

The Deputy Chairman: With this amendment we shall take Amendments No. 148, in page 5, line 19, after 'a', insert 'public, community or', and No. 53, in line 22, after 'person', insert 'enjoying the use of or', both standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray).
No. 54, in line 22, after 'right', insert:
'or a person who has exercised a public right of navigation or seafishery;'.
standing in the name of the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart); and No. 55, in page 5, line 24, leave out from 'by' to end of line 25 and insert ' the Court of Session', also standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty.

Mr. Gray: Public rights, community rights and private rights all have a bearing on the Bill. We would like to see them all acknowledged in their own way. Public rights could include terms of navigation rights, sailing rights and fishing rights. In my constituency, in the Outer Loch Carron, there is a well-known and famous fishing ground, particularly for prawns. Other creel fish is caught there, but the prawns are very famous. Some of the men depend on this small fishing ground for their livelihood.
At present no reference is made in the Bill to compensation for interference with the public rights which these people enjoy. What steps do the Government propose to take, and what measures do they think they can include in the Bill to take care of this situation? I accept that it is probably one of the most difficult things of all to assess exactly what the loss to a prawn fisherman is merely by the exercise in his area of the oil companies, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I know many of the people involved and that they are deeply worried about the situation.
They are among that small group of people in the Highlands who perhaps do

not see the benefits of the oil readily accruing to them. More likely, they see the loss of creels and other gear. This is nothing new to them because they are accustomed to the large pair trawlers sweeping all before them. They feel that with the oil works taken over this will be a continuation of the problem they now experience.
There are also community rights—for example, the rights of common grazings of crofters. How are these rights to be determined and safeguarded? Obviously, in the taking over of the land the Government will do what they can to protect these people, but great fears exist in the areas most likely to be developed. How does the hon. Gentleman propose to give reassurance to these people?
The private rights are different again. All these rights—public rights, community rights and private rights—have their own little legal problems, and I do not pretend to suggest that, overall, they constitute a great problem for the Minister to solve. But the Bill is fairly comprehensive and far-reaching, and we must look to the Government to explain how they propose to protect the interests of ordinary people who may be adversely affected in these ways.
I do not wish to continue at length because I have no doubt that others may want to participate. I have raised a few serious points for the Minister to consider. If he cannot give me the answers now, perhaps he will give me the assurance that the Government will consider tabling amendments on Report which will take care of the interests of the people to whom I have referred.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The Bill is extending almost for the first time some planning rights to sea areas. In so doing it may be giving rise to an injustice to those who fish in the inshore waters, as has been made clear by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray). It is generally established where a public action leads to a loss that that action normally gives rise to compensation. To make up for the loss that a person may have sustained some equitable compensation is delivered to justify the original public action.
I think it is generally agreed that the main difficulty which we face in taking


care of the position of inshore fishermen is that of assessing compensation. This is an instance in which some effort must be made by the Government to provide such compensation, otherwise it is possible that under the preceding subsection the result could be a gross injustice. The preceding subsection makes it clear that in the interests of oil, the national economy, the balance of payments or whatever, fishing rights in what were previously territorial waters or the high seas can be abrogated. It is suggested that some: alternative action is required.
It is already conceded that when freshwater fishers or salmon fishers are affected by public action some compensation will necessarily follow. There were many people in Scotland, and especially in the Highlands, who questioned the action, for example, of the hydro board in years gone by in paying large sums by way of compensation to the riparian proprietors. We are facing a situation in which the ordinary chap who makes a living by fishing haddock, herring or prawn can be turned off the water without compensation.
This issue is immediately relevant. Already there has been a suggestion to assemble platforms in Loch Carron. It has been suggested that they should be built at Ardyne and towed up to Loch Carron to have their super-structures added in the deep water of the loch. The first suggestion came of its own accord but possibly there will be others.
I doubt whether the Government would have been considering sea designation orders had it not been felt that there was a need for the same.
Of course, some of the areas which might be affected are reckoned in the localities concerned to be rich in fish. There are communities which rely upon them for their livelihood. This is a serious matter because inshore fishermen have to pay for their boats. They cost tens of thousands of pounds. The boats are unsuited to anything except sheltered waters close to the home ports. Many of the inshore fishermen have bank loans or loans from the Highlands and Islands Development Board or the White Fish Authority. Some of them have mortgaged their homes so as to find a deposit. If the fishing grounds are closed, these fishermen could be ruined.
It is the rule of law that the haddock and the prawn, for example, belong to anyone until they are caught. By closing off the waters in these areas the inshore fishermen could sustain a loss. We should try to arrive at some form of compensation for such interference. I am told that there are approximately 40 boats operating from the Kyle of Lochalsh, Loch Carron and other similar grounds. These are likely to lose their living on account of the torpedo range. It would be a great pity now when we have a Bill dealing with sea areas if something similar were to happen because of the wish to assemble production platforms in Loch Carron, Loch Broom, Loch Ewe, or Loch Eriboll.
One of the problems may concern the definition of compensation. The normal standard is to try to indicate what sort of loss might be sustained, but I feel that here we should consider compensation which could be classed as a "disturbance payment". I have been given a rather complicated calculation which might help the Minister if ultimately he is prepared to produce amendments on Report.
It is suggested that if it can be established that someone has been fishing or setting creels in a given area of water which falls within a designated sea area for three years or more a disturbance payment could be calculated on the following basis. The amount could be equal to, first, the annual loss which such operator would sustain by reason of being so prohibited or restricted, multiplied by 10. Such annual loss would be determined as being that proportion of the net annual average profit of such operator for three years immediately preceding the making of the sea designation order—as is arrived at by dividing the net average profit by the number of working days in a year and multiplying the resulting quotient by the number of working days on which such operator fished or set nets or creels or pots in, or adjacent to, that area of water.
As if that were not complicated enough, two other elements, it is suggested, might be taken into consideration. The first is any redundancy payment which any such operator might be required by law to pay to any employee if he has to dismiss that employee because of the restriction on his fishing operations. The


second is that the proportion of any debt secured over the fishing boat or its gear, equipment or appurtenances as is arrived at by dividing the total of such debt by the same divisor and multiplying the resultant quotient by the same multiplier. It is very difficult for the Minister to absorb those formulae as I quote them, in spite of his ability. However, he will be able to consider the details in HANSARD.
May I reiterate that the closing of certain waters could have an effect on the livelihoods of fishermen, and since this is a Government initiative in the public interest to extend some planning control to sea areas, the Minister should now consider fair and reasonable compensation for the loss that this entails.

Mr. Sproat: In an earlier contribution I mentioned the easily-excited suspicion and distrust of the fishing industry about oil-related activities. This is one more example of how the industry feels that it is perpetually on the defensive against the oil industry. I wish to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) said, because it is wrong in this instance to draw a distinction between private rights and the rights of the fishing industry.
The fishing industry is a traditional user of the sea, and many livelihoods depend upon it. If its activities are to be disrupted, diminished or destroyed because of oil-related activity in the short or long term, compensation should certainly be paid to it. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to give us a reassurance that he will look at this matter in principle and try to make some contribution to the problem on Report.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. MacCormick: I wish to draw attention to the position in the county of Argyll. Many hon. Members, from all parts of the United Kingdom, must revel in the edible luxury known as the Fyne herring, which may well be under threat because of the Bill.
The fishermen in ports such as Tarbert, Carradale and Campbeltown have already expressed worries about what is likely to happen in Loch Fyne.
The Minister of State said earlier that sea designation orders would not apply to many areas of Scotland, but one of the

main areas to which they will apply is undoubtedly Loch Fyne. The whole loch, or large stretches of it, may well become a sea designation area.
We in Argyll are most anxious that there should be serious examination of the question of compensation. If there is not, not only will many fishermen lose their livelihoods, for the reasons other hon. Members have already given, but the country will lose a resource of great value.

Mr. Millan: We are dealing with the most difficult set of amendments to the Bill, because there is a difficulty in meeting in a practical way what I understand to be powerful demands by fishery interests.
There is a background to the matter which is consistent with the provisions of subsection (4). Public rights of the sort affected are not normally compensated. Any loss that may have arisen for deep-sea fishermen in the North Sea has not been compensated. Therefore, if we did something for the inshore fishermen we should be creating an anomaly between them and their colleagues in other fishery operations which may equally be affected by the activities of the oil industry.
But it is not the possible inconsistency that makes me doubtful about whether we could find a solution, although I would not say that the inconsistency and the general principles involved are not important. What is most difficult here is, first, identifying those who will suffer damage and, secondly, calculating that damage.
There have been no sea designation orders yet. It is difficult to determine in advance what the circumstances may be in relation to one particular order. The Shetland County Council representatives made the point to me that certain other oil-related activities in Shetland were likely to affect certain fishermen in a fairly precise and identifiable way. In those circumstances, although the sea designation order would not apply to the area concerned, it would be possible to work out principles of compensation.
But in other areas, perhaps the kind of areas where sea designation orders are likely to apply, it will be difficult to identify the fishermen concerned, and particularly difficult to calculate any


loss that they might have suffered. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) admitted that when he described the complicated formula that certain people had put to him as a possible basis for calculating compensation.
In general terms, if one were to enter the realm of compensation one would first have to obtain evidence that a particular claimant had exercised rights in the area concerned for a specific period. That qualification is recognised in Amendment No. 54. It would have to be demonstrated that the effect of the sea designation order was to deny certain of the rights which he had enjoyed. It would then have to be demonstrated that he could not exercise similar rights, with similar profits, elsewhere. There would also be the problem of calculating the loss. Even if it were possible to get over these hurdles it might, in the nature of things—even if we got a suitable formula —be a period of years before the calculations could be made.
There are appalling difficulties here. I am not sure that even with all these points I have mentioned taken into consideration, we would at the end of the day necessarily be identifying and attempting to compensate all those who ought to be compensated, or even compensating the right people. I see no practical way of meeting what would otherwise be fairly generally held desires on this matter.
The hon. Gentleman, by mentioning a torpedo testing range—I think I know the one he has in mind—confirms that rights are interfered with at present, without compensation, for purposes which have nothing to do with the oil industry.
We would not wish to enter into a new area here which could be taken as a precedent elsewhere, thus giving appalling problems in other areas. I shall look at the matter again, although I assure hon. Members that I have looked at it already. I am not hopeful, however, that we shall be able to get a solution. Therefore, I do not invite the withdrawal of the amendment on the basis that I am hopeful that I would put something down by Report. But I shall consider what has been said tonight and give further thought to whether it will be possible to take action. If I find that we can, I shall consider having provisions inserted in the

Bill later. But I am not hopeful of being able to do this, and I do not want to mislead hon. Members to the effect that if the amendment is withdrawn there would be likely to be something put down by the Government, because we face problems in reaching a solution here. But I admit that I would be happy if we could reach a solution.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for his sympathetic attitude towards the amendment, but I am sorry that he cannot be more positive about what the Government could try to do for the fishermen. I want to try to twist his arm a little more to try to get a firm assurance between now and Report that he will try every possible avenue of approach to see if it is possible to find a way in which the people involved can be helped.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) that I was called out of the Chamber during his remarks. I have, therefore, heard only second-hand about his reference to the torpedo range, which also affects part of my constituency. I can speak only for the fishermen who operate from my constituency. They have no great regret —indeed, no regret at all—about the torpedo range, because the Royal Navy has been most co-operative in all its dealings with them. Perhaps the hon. Member for Dundee, East is not aware of it but his political party in my constituency used this for political purposes at various times. The arguments about the Navy were quite ill-founded. The Navy is broadly welcomed by the population in the area, and I would ask the Minister not to pay too much attention to what the hon. Member said as it affects my constituents. I hope that the Minister will try to devise some means of helping those of my constituents who are adversely affected.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Leaving aside the divisive statements of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) about an internal political battle within his constituency, may I ask the Minister to give a firmer undertaking to look at this again? Obviously, I do not wish to provoke a Division if he will agree to re-examine this.
There is a principle here. For the first time there is an extension of planning matters into the open sea. This has an


effect on people's livelihood. The Minister may well quote other examples of instances when we have not helped people. However, since this Bill has allegedly been presented in an attempt to improve our balance of payments, the Government can perhaps afford to be generous about those fishermen whose interests are likely to be affected. I would most strongly ask the hon. Gentleman to look again at this to see whether he can come forward with something practical on Report.

Mr. James Dempsey: I want to ask my hon. Friend to clear up one point for some of us who do not represent seafaring constituencies. The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) has referred to the possibility of the herring industry suffering adversely as a result of the provisions in this Bill. I am sure that no one would deny that one of the most attractive delicacies on any table is the herring, especially the Loch Fyne herring. To my English colleagues who have spoken of the kipper, I say that they should try some of our new tatties and Loch Fyne herring. They would realise that it is one of the finest dishes that can be presented on any table.
I would not like to think for a moment that there was any possibility of that most attractive delicacy being lost to the nation. I speak as one with a consumer interest, if not a seafaring interest, in the argument. Can my hon. Friend assure us that there is no danger of any developments which could preclude the fishing of the Loch Fyne herring off the cost of Argyllshire?
I have been to Loch Fyne. I have cycled it—the proletariat's way of getting round the country. I have youth-hostelled in Loch Fyne. I have seen the fishing there. It is one of the most beautiful and delectable spots in the whole of the United Kingdom. I feel that we should be told that there is not the slightest possibility of this attractive delicacy suffering adversely as a result of this legislation.

Mr. Millan: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have no desire to deprive him—or myself for that matter—of Loch Fyne herring. It does not make any easier the job of working out a compensation scheme, if we were to be committed

to such a thing. I say to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) that what I have given is a firm commitment to look at the problem. I say that not because it is a simple thing to say but because it is a real intention to try to find a solution. I do not wish to mislead the hon. Gentleman or the Committee into thinking that I shall be able to produce a solution to this difficult problem. I am firmly committed to look at it again, and I will do so before Report.

Mr. Gray: In view of that assurance, and in the knowledge that we can return to this matter on report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[MR. RICHARD CRAWSHAW in the Chair]

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move Amendment No. 56, in page 5, line 32, leave out '£400' and insert'£5,000'.

The Deputy Chairman: With this amendment, it will be convenient to move Amendment No. 70, in page 6, line 30, leave out '£400' and insert '£5,000'.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: This is a simple amendment, whose purpose is to let the judges know that if any proceedings are taken in a summary cause it is essential that licences issued by the Government to control developments are observed.
Reference was made earlier to the difficulties that might occur at Kishorn, with the implication that planning consents may not be observed. It is the normal practice for judges to go for something less than a fine of £400, although first offenders occasionally have had to bear the maximum penalty.
We seek to put the matter in context since we are dealing with construction companies which will be the gainers in connection with production platform contracts involving expenditure ranging from £50 million to £70 million each. There is a temptation on their part to get the best out of the contract, and perhaps to be a little less than careful about observing the conditions. It may well be that a sum of £50,000 on that scale of values would be a small figure, and I would be inclined to agree with that suggestion, but it would be an indication to judges that we are dealing with contracts of high


value and that on summary conviction a fine in the range of £1 to £5,000 might be more relevant than a fine of £1 to £400.
The Bill still contains a provision, which I welcome, to take on indictment a serious infringement of licensing conditions. I feel that if the fine is raised, on summary proceedings, to a reasonable level some benefit might be gained. It is a small matter, but I commend the amendment to the Minister.

Mr. Fairgrieve: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) may suggest that the raising of the fine from £400 to £5,000 is a small matter, but I suggest that this is yet another smack at the firms who will have to carry out this work. I believe that it will be an added disincentive to those firms and that it will not help the problems of Scotland.

Mr. Buchan: I am a little surprised that this point should be raised by a lawyer. It seems to me that in relation to subsection (4) (a) the sky is the limit. I regard a figure of this sort on summary conviction as quite wrong. Indeed, I do not like the companies. I do not think there should be companies at all. I think that there should be public ownership.
I appreciate the devotion in the Scottish National Party to the cause of private enterprise and business. However, I believe that it is a great dereliction of duty on the part of its members that they should now be trying to clobber business in this way. I think that we should leave them well alone, and that, if companies are as bad as they are, it might be better to leave them to face the matter on indictment.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) will be aware that a company, if proceeded against on indictment, is subject to an unlimited fine. I thought that that was made clear on Second Reading, when one of his colleagues was proceeding on a mistaken assumption on that matter.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt recall that I referred to the fact that more serious infringements could be dealt with by way of indictment. Does he agree that I was aware that in such circumstances the fine would be unlimited?

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) was engaged in a tirade on this matter on Second Reading until it was pointed out to him that another subsection covered that matter.
Deciding what ought to be a suitable penalty on summary conviction is not an easy matter. There could be a wide variety of views on the matter. If the Committee as a whole feels that the sum should be increased to £5,000 the Government will not stand in its way. Few views have been expressed on the matter. We do not take any dogmatic line about it. The Government's inclination is to accept the amendment.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: My hearing may be impaired. Did the Minister say that the amendment should be accepted?

Mr. John Smith: I said that the amendment ought to be accepted. The Government do not oppose the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir John Gilmour: I beg to move Amendment No. 57, in page 5, line 36, leave out subsection (6).

The Temporary Chairman: With this amendment it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 58,
in page 5, line 37, after 'may', insert 'after consultation with the harbour authority or such local authorities as are mentioned in subsection (4) of section 4 of this Act'.

Sir John Gilmour: Subsection (6) gives the Secretary of State power to
charge, for the issue of a licence … such fee as he may with the approval of the Treasury determine.
I should like to know from the Minister what type of fee is envisaged.
Subsection (7) provides that
A licence granted … may at any time be varied or revoked by the Secretary of State".
If the licence is varied or revoked, what happens to the licence fee that has been paid? Is it refunded in total or in part? May we have some information on what level of fee is likely to be demanded by the Secretary of State under that subsection?

Mr. John Smith: I cannot help the hon. Gentleman very much on the specific point that he has made. The fee will be considered according to the particular circumstances.
The amendment would remove the power of the Secretary of State to charge


a fee for the issue of a licence. An amendment on similar lines has been tabled—which will have to be considered —to delete the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling him to levy charges.
The creation of designated sea areas is made necessary as a result and partly for the benefit of assembly and testing operations on offshore oil equipment.
Administrative costs will be involved in drawing up and processing sea designation orders, licences and regulations. The Secretary of State and his appointed agents in some areas will incur expense in policing the designated sea areas to make sure that licence conditions are being carried out and regulations are observed. There may be costs of providing common-user moorings and of dredging, lighting and buoying.
We feel that the cost of these operations should not fall on the taxpayer. Surely it is right that the companies whose operations make this public expenditure necessary should directly contribute at least part of the cost of meeting it.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman disputes that principle. However, he asks me to say in advance of the operation of the Act what the level of fees is likely to be. I cannot tell him. because that will depend on how things work out and the scale of the operations. The fees will have to be determined in the light of the costs that the Government incur to make sure that the licences work. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that this is an administrative matter.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Amendment No. 58 should be withdrawn because it is consequential, in a way, to Amendment No. 59, which attempts to interfere with the ability of the Government to accept the money. It is a question of disbursement of money. If that is the case, and Amendment No. 59 cannot be taken because it is out of order, Amendment No. 58 falls to be withdrawn.

Sir John Gilmour: I am grateful for what the Minister has said. Would I be right in saying that what he is indicating is that the level of licence fee which will be demanded will be sufficiently high to recover all expenses in which the Secretary of State or any public authority act-

ing on his behalf has been involved, and that it is not likely to be a fee in excess of that, but is only likely to recoup the outlays made on the Secretary of State's behalf?
When one considers the enormous costs involved in the type of installations which are to be fabricated, one appreciates that perhaps a few thousand pounds for a licence, in addition to a £70 million production platform, may not be a very great sum. In all fairness, however, what those seeking licences should have assurance about is that the total amount to be asked will not be revenue for the Exchequer but a recoupment of all public expenses involved in overseeing the sea area.

Mr. John Smith: At present the Government are concerned, in the first instance, with recouping public expenditure. The cost of oil operations and the investment involved are quite considerable. The hon. Gentleman ought not to be too apprehensive about the capacity of the companies involved to pay the fees thought to be necessary.
I do not want to go into this matter in too fine detail. My understanding is that the first thing we must seek to achieve is the recoupment of public expenditure, but the matter will have to be kept under review by the Government. The power, I think, ought not to be thought to be limited purely to that.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It would be helpful if the Minister were a little more forthcoming in response to the specific question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). Quite simply, my hon. Friend is asking whether this is to be a revenue-raising operation, regardless of the purposes for which the revenue may be applied, or whether it is to be—as we are pressing— simply revenue which will be related to the expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in relation to his functions under the Bill.
This matter is important, because if the fees were set at an excessively high level it could add considerably to the costs of extraction and exploitation of oil. It is a cost which the oil companies would obviously have to take into account. Are the Government looking at the matter as a general revenue-raising operation or as a specific revenue-raising


operation for the purposes of the Bill? If it is the latter, my hon. Friend and I would be much happier, but if these fees are to be used for wider revenue-raising purposes we should have great reservations.

Mr. John Smith: I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not intended to use this as another form of taxation or the raising of revenue from the oil companies. I was asked to confine this simply to the matter of reimbursement. I cannot be entirely precise about the matter, because people will read what is said in this debate and quote it against the Government later. Two reasons have been quoted. Reimbursement is the dominant principle.

Sir John Gilmour: I thank the Minister for what he said. While I agree that the oil companies may be in a position to pay, I should like to point out that all of us, and our constituents, are the people who will have to pay for the oil product at the end of the day. Therefore, we have a right to look after the consumer interests and make certain that no unnecessary charges are incurred in the extraction of this valuable commodity from beneath the North Sea.
However, in view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.45 p.m.

Mr, Gray: I beg to move Amendment No. 60, in page 5, line 39, leave out 'at any time'.

The Temporary Chairman: With this Amendment, we are to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 61, in page 5, line 40, at end:
'Provided the person to whom the licence has been granted is given six months notice of the variation or revocation except where the conditions of the licence have not been complied with when the Secretary of State may revoke the licence at any time.'
Amendment No. 62, in page 5, line 40, at end add:
'(8) Before varying or revoking a licence the Secretary of State shall consult with the person to whom the licence was granted and he shall state the grounds which shall be reasonable for the variation or revocation.

(9) The Secretary of State shall compensate the person whose licence is varied or revoked for any loss incurred as a result of the variation and revocation provided that the aforesaid person has complied hitherto with the conditions of the licence.'

Mr. Gray: Subsection (7) reads:
(7) A licence granted under section 4 of this Act may at any time be varied or revoked by the Secretary of State.
I do not pretend that occasions may not arise where people who have been awarded licences may come into default. I think it is rather severe to include the plain statement "at any time". This seems to me to give tremendous power to the Secretary of State.
In the associated amendments, Nos. 61 and 62, conditions are briefly set out which we feel would be more reasonable for the licensee.
Amendment No. 61, states that
'Provided the person to whom the licence has been granted is given six months' notice of the variation or revocation except where the conditions of the licence have not been complied with when the Secretary of State may revoke the licence at any time'.
We think that is reasonable enough, provided there has been some drastic contravention. We think it should be spelled out. It seems very glib just to state that this licence can be revoked at any time. We should like the Government to think about this one and consider writing into the Bill, perhaps on Report, something more specific.
This is a fairly simple point which does not require a lengthy speech from me. We think that it is unfair that the licensee should be in a danger of having his licence revoked at any time by the Secretary of State without specific reasons being spelled out in the Bill.

Mr. John Smith: I understand what the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) means. He wants to put restrictions on the power of the Secretary of State to vary or revoke a licence at any time.
The first two amendments would require the Secretary of State to give six months' notice of his intention to vary or revoke a licence, unless he is revoking the licence because its conditions have not been complied with. This is unrealistic and could in certain circumstances easily work to the disadvantage of the licensee. If, for example, the


licensee found it necessary to carry out his operations in a way that was not covered by his existing licence, he would approach the Secretary of State presumably to have his licence varied. If this amendment were made, the Secretary of State would have to say, "I am sorry, although I agree with the variation you want to make you will have to wait six months until I can make it." In those circumstances it might not be helpful to the licensee concerned. The question of revocation would arise only if there had been a breach of the conditions of the licence in normal circumstances.
The proposed new subsection (9), which is proposed as part of these amendments, would require the Secretary of State to compensate a licensee for any loss he incurred as a result of the variation or revocation of the licence, provided the licensee had hitherto observed the conditions. If the Secretary of State were ever to revoke a licence for reasons other than failure to observe the conditions, or to impose further conditions that resulted in a loss to the licensee, he would do so only if he were convinced that such action was necessary in the public interest.
For example, unforeseen shock waves generated in the water might be killing fish, or a licensee who relied hitherto on supply boats might take to using helicopters, and thereby disturb residents near the shore. If there were no designated sea area, the people affected would probably seek legal action. They would not expect to have to buy off the person responsible for the nuisance by paying him compensation, which might be one of the results to occur.
If compensation were payable, some people might say that compensation should be paid the other way round. Since actions of this sort are barred by subsection (3), the Secretary of State would have to intervene to protect the public interest.
I understand why the matter has been raised, but there are some complications which occur as a result. We believe the licensing system can be made to work perfectly well as the clause stands.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: There are two points here—one of compensation if the licence is revoked and one of the right of appeal in the event of the licensee

feeling that his licence has been revoked unnecessarily. It could happen that an absolute power vested in the Secretary of State by this provision was abused, and it would not be encouraging for people working on these provisions to find that licences could be revoked at any time and they had no right of appeal or entitlement to compensation.

Mr. John Smith: The amendments do not provide a right of appeal; they merely ask that the licensee shall be consulted. Obviously he would be consulted. If complaints were brought to the attention of the Secretary of State about the operation of the licence and it were alleged that some of its conditions had been breached, normally these matters would have to be put to the licensee. The Secretary of State would be reluctant to revoke or vary the conditions of the licence other than for a very good reason. In this instance, we have to have confidence in the integrity of the Secretary of State holding that office at the time, regardless of his party.

Mr. Gray: I cannot say that I am satisfied with what the Minister has said. It is what is said in this legislation at the end of the day that has to be acted upon. However honourable the present Secretary of State or any future one may be, there is always the possibility that some rogue Secretary of State could abuse the power, and this legislation could be interpreted in the wrong way.
I accept the limitations of the drafting of the amendments, but I hope that the Minister will accept the spirit in which they are submitted. We feel that the Bill gives the Secretary of State wide powers and that the licensee should be protected. There should be a requirement that he be given a reasonable indication of the reason why his licence is likely to be revoked.
The Minister is in a charitable mood tonight. I hope that he will not close his mind to the amendments but will be prepared to think about them between now and Report.

Mr. John Smith: I take on board all that the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) has said, but I must resist this amendment.
The oil companies and construction companies will be working within sea designation areas. They will be given


licences. Normally, provided that they carry out the conditions, they will have nothing to fear, and we do not anticipate much trouble. The power of the Secretary of State is a last stop, to give him some interest on behalf of the Community.
Whatever may be the possibilities about who holds the office of Secretary of State, he represents the public interest. Most Secretaries of State do, and there are many people to remind them of their public responsibilities.
The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty feels that I have been less charitable to him than I have to other hon. Members. My limits of charity are not yet reached, but they cannot be extended on every occasion. I am afraid that on this amendment I must give the hon. Gentleman a disappointing answer.

Mr. Gray: I am still not completely satisfied, but I can see that I shall not budge the Minister.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

REGULATIONS FOR PROTECTION AND CONTROL OF OPERATIONS IN DESIGNATED SEA AREAS.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 155, in page 6, line 4, at end insert:
'(d) the protection of fishing in any such area;'.

The Temporary Chairman: With this amendment, we are to discuss Amendment No. 64, in page 6, line 5, at end insert:
'(e) the preservation of marine and wildlife in any such area'.

Mr. Millan: I need not say much more about this matter, because we have already discussed fishing. By putting it specifically in Clause 6, which is the regulation-making clause, we indicate our considerable interest in protecting fishing, and it will be possible in the regulations themselves to make provisions about underwater obstructions, the prevention of the encroachment of operations into spawning grounds and a number of other

matters of considerable interest to the protection of fishing interests.

Mr. Sproat: What are the Government's intentions with regard to a situation where fishing vessels seek shelter in coastal waters in bad weather in sea areas which might be designated? It would be wrong on safety grounds to interfere with the safety rights of vessels in such cases. May we be assured that safety rights in emergencies will not be at risk?

Mr. Millan: Without notice, I could not give a categorical assurance. If I did, I might go beyond what the hon. Gentleman is asking. But there must be provision whereby, in emergency, a vessel can seek shelter in such waters. One cannot stick to the letter of the law when danger to human life is involved. I shall see that what the hon. Gentleman has raised is taken into account, and I am sure that there must be provision for emergencies, but I cannot now be categorical. I would not wish to be taken as giving a pledge which could not, in the event, be fulfilled.

Mr. Corrie: We thank the Minister for dealing with the protection of fishing in such areas. I am sure that the fishermen will welcome the amendment wholeheartedly as well. We hope that marine and wild life can also be protected. We have been asked many questions about these aspects in the last week or so. We hope that marine life will not be too much disturbed by dredging or blasting in any of the sea areas being taken over for development.
Perhaps because my name is linked with the conservation cause, I have had an extra heavy post on these aspects. Many people and societies have written. May we have an assurance that wild life will not be disrupted too much in these areas? Many people outside the House are passionately involved with these matters, and the areas which may be taken away for such development are likely to be remote and unspoilt and have an abundance of wild life.
For example, I trust that seal colonies will not be destroyed out of hand because they happen to be on a site chosen for development. I hope, too, that bird sanctuaries will not be too much disturbed by development. Many people are desperately interested in these matters and would like an assurance from the Government.

Mr. Millan: I do not think I could give an assurance which would extend to writing this aspect into the Bill as a purpose of the regulations, but obviously in none of these matters would we unnecessarily disturb or interfere with marine or wild life of any sort. It must be protected as much as possible. But there is already specific legislation, such as the Protection of Birds Act, and we certainly have no wish to cause disturbance to anything other than is absolutely indispensable for the making of an order.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move Amendment No. 65, in page 6, line 8, leave out paragraph (f).

The Temporary Chairman: With this amendment we shall take Amendment No. 66, in page 6, line 10, at end insert:
'Provided that—

(i) no charge shall be levied on any vessel unconnected with said relevant operations; and
(ii) that all such charges shall in such proportion as the Secretary of State shall determine be paid to said harbour authority or said local authorities mentioned in section 4(4) of this Act'.

Mr. Rifkind: This is what the Minisster will be happy to call a probing amendment. Why is it felt necessary to impose charges under the terms of subsection (1)(f)? In what circumstances will it be found necessary to impose charges? Are these powers, which at the moment are merely permissive powers enabling the Secretary of State to make these charges if he so wishes, likely to be applied by the Government? If so, on what sort of vessels or platforms will the charges be levied? We shall be grateful to receive any other information which the Minister can give to the House as we are somewhat in the dark on the Government's thinking on this proposal.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: I propose to deal with Amendment No. 66 at the same time as Amendment No. 65. I am glad to hear that this is merely a probing amendment. I wondered whether it was being suggested that the Secretary of State should not levy charges in these circumstances. There are limits to the taxpayers' bounty. I am glad to hear that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pent-

lands (Mr. Rifkind) is merely seeking information.
The aim of these provisions is that the companies whose operations necessitate the creation and policing of designated sea areas should make a reasonable contribution towards the costs incurred by the Secretary of State or by a harbour authority or local authority acting as his agent. The author of the amendment clearly believe that taxpayers' money should be spent as an act of charity towards the platform construction firms.
It is not intended that charges should be levied on shipping or fishing vessels unconnected with the operations in the designated sea area. They are meant to apply to supply vessels attending the assembly or testing operations and to the operations themselves in some circumstances where charging on an item-by-item basis would be fairer than charging an all-in licence fee. Perhaps that goes some way towards explaining what we have in mind.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the Minister give an assurance that fishing vessels will be exempted? Will the charges apply to mail steamers, ferries and ships of that kind?

Mr. John Smith: Such ships will not be charged because they will not take part in the operations with which we are concerned.

Mr. Rifkind: On this occasion, I am happy with the information supplied by the Minister. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move Amendment No. 67, in page 6, line 11, leave out paragraph (g).
On this occasion I shall have to disappoint the Minister. Unlike the previous amendment, this is not meant to be a probing amendment. In its present form the clause is one of the most disturbing aspects of the Bill. The power which it seeks to enable the Secretary of State to regulate is put forward without any details being given as to the manner in which the activities of the persons concerned will be regulated. This smacks more of the KGB than of the normal, practice of British Government.
There are listed all the various grounds for regulation which the Secretary of State may seek. In the debate on Second Reading the Minister said:
In addition, activities within the area would be governed by regulations. These would cover such matters as the control and protection of navigation, the safety of the public, and the control of pollution."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 1118.]
Those were the only matters to which reference was made on Second Reading. We do not object to them, but we have had no information on the matters which are outlined in paragraphs (a) to (e). We have had no information as to why there should be this blanket provision to enable the Secretary of State to regulate a whole range of unspecified and unknown matters on which the Government have not thought fit to inform the House. Unless the Minister can satisfy us that these powers are justified and that they will not be abused we shall have to consider seriously what steps to take to try to prevent the subsection appearing on the statute book.

Mr. Millan: These are perfectly innocent provisions. If they are removed it will mean that the rest of the regulations will be unenforceable except through the courts. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would welcome that situation, but I would not.
Paragraph (g) merely allows the Secretary of State's officers, servants or appointed agents—which may include the local authority or the harbour authority —to give specific directions, for example, to the masters of vessels and to people controlling relevant operations in designated sea areas. Unless they are able to do that they will not be able to control events except by action through the courts. Without the paragraph the regulations would be made so weak as to be hardly worth having and the advantages of the regulations would largely disappear.

There is no question of the Secretary of State's going in and ordering people about unnecessarily, telling them that they may only do certain things with our approval and acting in a cavalier and sinister way. I am advised that we need the paragraph to enable the regulations to be enforced.

Mr. Rifkind: I am sorry, but I must press the Minister further. He has given examples where the regulations might apply, but he has given very few. He has not said why, if it is possible to stipulate specific purposes in paragraphs (a) to (e), these additional powers are necessary and why they cannot be stipulated in paragraph (g). In the Bill the Secretary of State seeks power to regulate the activities of persons, but he has not given specific examples. He has not said why the Bill should be framed in such a wide and uncontrolled fashion.

Mr. Millan: We are not here talking about what might actually appear in the regulations. In the clause we are following the fairly standard practice of taking regulation-making powers, and we have outlined briefly the sort of matters which might be covered by those regulations.
This is very much the common form, and I am assured that not only is there nothing sinister in it but that unless the regulations, when they are produced, actually contain powers of direction of this sort it will leave us with unenforceable regulations.
I suspect that if we took the paragraph out we could still cover the point with the regulations, but why the hon. Member should consider that to be of some advantage I cannot imagine.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 107, Noes 178.

Division No. 28.]
AYES
[11.5 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Brotherton, Michael
Cormack, Patrick


Aitken, J. W. P.
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Corrie, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Costain, A. P.


Banks, Robert
Bulmer, Esmond
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Benyon, W. R.
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Biffen, John
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, S)
Durant, Tony


Biggs-Davison, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cockcroft, John
Emery, Peter


Bowden, Andrew (Brighton)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Eyre, Reginald


Braine, Sir Bernard
Cope, John
Fairbairn, Nicholas




Fairgrieve, Russell
MacGregor, John
Silvester, Fred


Farr, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sims, Roger


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N.)
Mates, Michael
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Gardner, Edward (S. Fyide)
Mather, Carol
Speed, Keith


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spence, John


Gray, Hamish
Mayhew, Patrick
Spicer, James (W. Dorset)


Grieve, Percy
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spicer, Michael (S. Worcester)


Grist, Ian
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Sproat, lain


Hampson, Dr Keith
Miscampbell, Norman
Stainton, Keith


Harrison, Sir Harwood (Eye)
Monro, Hector
Stanbrook, Ivor


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Morrison, Peter (Chester)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hayhoe, Barney
Nelson, Anthony
Stokes, John


Hicks, Robert
Neubert, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (Glasgow C.)


Holland, Philip
Newton, Tony
Tebbit, Norman


Hunt, John
Osborn, John
Temple-Morris, P.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, John (Harrow West)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Parkinson, Cecil
Tugendhat, Christopher


James, David
Pattie, Geoffrey
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Percival, Ian
Viggers, P. J.


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Warren, Kenneth


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Weatherlll, Bernard


Knight, Mrs Jill
Rifkind, Malcolm
Young, Sir George (Ealing)


Lawrence, Ivan
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff N.W.)
Younger, Hon George


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)



Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Luce, Richard
Shelton, William (Lambeth St.)
Mr. John Stradling Thomas and


Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Colin
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant.




NOES


Anderson, Donald
Flannery, Martin
Mendelson, John


Archer, Peter
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Millan, Bruce


Armstrong, Ernest
Ford, Ben T.
Moonman, Eric


Ashton, Jop
Forrester, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Atkinson, Norman
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
George, Bruce
Murray, Ronald King


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Gilbert, Dr John
Noble, Mike


Bates, Alf
Golding, John
Oakes, Gordon


Bean, Robert E.
Gourlay, Harry
O'Halloran, Michael


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Grant, John (Islington C.)
Orbach, Maurice


Bidwell, Sydney
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Ovenden, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamling, William
Parker, John


Boardman, H.
Hardy, Peter
Parry, Robert


Booth, Albert
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pavitt, Laurie


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hatton, Frank
Pendry, Tom


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow Pr.)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Penhaligon, David


Buchan, Norman
Heffer, Eric S.
Prescott, John


Buchanan, Richard
Henderson, Douglas
Radice, Giles


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P.)
Hooloy, Frank
Reid, George


Campbell, Ian
Hooson, Emlyn
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cartwright, John
Horam, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Clemitson, I. M.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S.)
Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N.)
Rodgers, William (Teesside)


Concannon, J. D.
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rooker, J. W.


Conlan, Bernard
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roper, John


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
John, Brynmor
Rose, Paul B.


Corbett, Robin
Johnson, James (Kingston, W.)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)


Cox, Thomas (Wands, Toot)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rowlands, Ted


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow M.)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sedgemore, B.


Crawford, Douglas
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Selby, Harry


Cryer, Bob
Kaufman, Gerald
Short, Rt Hon Edward (Newcastle C)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh.)
Kelley, Richard
Sillars, James


Dalyell, Tarn
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Davidson, Arthur
Kinnock, Neil
Small, William


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Lamond, James
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Smith, John (N. Lanarkshire)


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Snape, Peter


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stallard, A. W.


Dempsey, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Doig, Peter
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Stewart, Rt Hn Michael (H'smith, F)


Dormand, Jack
McCartney, Hugh
Stoddart, David


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
MacCormick, lain
Stott, Roger


Duffy, A. E. P.
McElhone, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Dunn, James A.
Mackintosh, John P.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Dunnett, Jack
McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Madden, Max
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Edge, Geoffrey
Magee, Bryan
Thompson, George


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mahon, Simon
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (Devon)


English, Michael
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tierney, Sydney


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Meacher, Michael
Tomlinson, John


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Urwin, T. W.







Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
White, James (Glasgow, P)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V.)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Young, David (Bolton E.)


Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E.)



Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Wilson, William (Coventry S.E.)



Ward, Michael
Wise, Mrs Audrey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Welsh, Andrew
Woodall, Alec
Mr. James Hamilton and


White, Frank R. (Bury)
Woof, Robert
Mr. Joseph Harper.

Question accordingly negatived.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 68, in page 6, line 26, at end insert:
'(4) Regulations made under this section shall be published in respect of each designated sea area'.
This amendment is an attempt to clarify the method by which the regulations are published and made known. Lines 14–16 of Clause 6 say:
and such regulations may apply to one or more designated sea areas and may make different provision in respect of different designated sea areas or parts thereof.
I understand the reasons for that. One set of regulations could be common to a lot of areas, while some regulations may be specific. All I ask for is that even though there may be overlapping of regulations, the regulations in relation to each area should be published so that those operating in the areas can see precisely which regulations apply, even though they may also apply elsewhere.

Mr. Millan: I can give the assurance that without the amendment the regulations will be by statutory instrument, and will be published by the Stationery Office. They will be available to all concerned.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In the light of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Gray: I beg to move Amendment No. 69, in page 6, line 26, at end insert:
'(4) The Schedule (Making, varying and revocation of regulations with respect to sea designation areas) shall have effect as respects the making, varying and revocation of regulations under this section'.

The Temporary Chairman: With this amendment we can also discuss the new schedule—Making, Varying and Revocation of Regulation with Respect to Sea Designation Areas.

Mr. Gray: This is a request that the maximum publicity should be given to the designation. We believe that each

area should be separately advertised in the local papers. We have laid down in the new schedule certain categories which we think are relevant and certain steps that the Secretary of State should follow. I shall not deal with this in detail now, but I hope that the Minister will agree to them.

Mr. Millan: I do not think I can recommend the acceptance of the amendment. Schedule 3 deals with the making of sea designation orders and contains provisions about advertising, taking account of representations, and so on. Adding a schedule such as the hon. Gentleman is proposing would produce a cumbersome procedure.
I do not think there will be any difficulty in ensuring that those likely to be affected are either consulted or are made aware of what is likely to be involved in the making of an order. I therefore think that the amendment and the proposed schedule are unnecessary and might hold up matters without producing any result that would be for the benefit of anybody at the end of the day.
In those circumstances, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman may care to withdraw the amendment. If there are particular points that he wants to write into the Bill later, about representations, and so on, I shall be prepared to consider them, but I cannot recommend the procedure that he is suggesting here.

Mr. Gray: Bearing in mind that the lives of everybody in these areas will be affected in some way or other I shall consider what the Minister has said and perhaps table an amendment on Report. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Temporary Chairman: The Question is, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Millan: With respect, Mr. Crawshaw, I thought we had agreed earlier to accept Amendment No. 70 in the names of the hon. Member for Western


Isles (Mr. Stewart) and his hon. Friends, in page 6, line 30, leave out "£400" and insert "£5,000". My hon. Friend gave an undertaking when I was not in the Chamber—there is no significance in that —and I hope the Committee will accept the amendment.

Mr. Grimond: If the amendment were accepted it would mean that if a fishing boat transgressed the regulations and strayed into an area by mistake the person concerned would be liable to a fine of £5,000.

Mr. John Smith: This is an upper limit. The court will have to take account of the circumstances of the case. In any event, whether or not the amendment is accepted, the person concerned could be subjected to an unlimited fine if he were prosecuted on indictment.
When the amendment was discussed earlier I accepted what I judged to be the view of the Committee. Unfortunately, that might not have been the view of the whole Committee because of the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, but I cannot do anything about that.

Amendment made: No. 70, in page 6, line 30, leave out '£400' and insert '£5,000'. —[Mr. Donald Stewart.]

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

EXECUTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS, ETC. IN DESIGNATED SEA AREAS.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I beg to move Amendment No. 71, in page 6, line 38, leave out 'or'.

The Temporary Chairman: With this we are to take Amendment No. 72.

Mr. Stewart: The amendment is consequential on the proposal to delete paragraph (b). The Bill calls for the power to execute and enforce regulations to be delegated to
any harbour authority or local authority designated by him"—
that is the Secretary of State—
whose area includes any part of that area ".
That is unexceptional, but paragraph (b) refers to "any other such body".
Does that mean a construction company, or perhaps other commercial interests? We should like the Minister to elucidate that paragraph.

Mr. Millan: Rather than explain to the hon. Gentleman what other bodies or persons we have in mind, I am prepared to accept the two amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 72, in page 6, line 39, leave out paragraph (b).—[Mr. Stewart.]

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 73, in page 6, line 40, at end insert—
(2) A statutory instrument containing an order made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of cither House of Parliament.
To some extent my reason for moving the amendment has been overtaken by the Government's acceptance of Amendments Nos. 71 and 72. What worried me was that, if the Secretary of State were to delegate these powers, particularly under paragraph (b), to
any other such body, or any other such person or persons, as he thinks fit
it would be only proper that the House of Commons should have more direct control. I suggest that this should be done under the negative procedure rather than its being done by way of order.
I shall not press the amendment, unless perhaps it is an amendment which the Government, in their new mood of generosity, are prepared to accept, in which case I would never look a gift horse in the mouth. Otherwise, given the Government's acceptance of the previous two amendments, there is no purpose in pursuing this amendment.
I therefore shall not proceed with the amendment.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move Amendment No. 75, in page 7, line 9, at end insert:
'except in so far as any part of the designated sea area is within the area of another authority this jurisdiction shall only be exercised with the agreement of that authority'.
We understand the extension of the powers from one competent authority to another. On the basis that it is a fact of life that people work better together


by mutual agreement than by the imposition of powers—a principle which is embodied in that rather elusive document, the social contract—local authorities and harbour authorities are properly jealous of their individual powers and responsibilities. It is hard to see the benefit of this being deliberately disregarded by the Bill, which is aimed at expediting oil extraction, on the one hand, and retaining harmony between local authorities, on the other. Perhaps the Minister will explain why it is necessary in this case to impose one authority upon another.

Mr. John Smith: We understand the principle behind the amendment. The way it is framed poses difficulties. We prefer to approach the matter on the basis of consultation. We shall put forward an amendment on Report to embody the spirit of this amendment.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: On that understanding, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7, as amended, ordered, to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

REINSTATEMENT OF LAND HELD UNDER ACT

Amendment made: No. 77, in page 7, line 21, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 24 and insert:
',subject to subsection (2) below, reinstate it, or secure its reinstatement, to the condition in which it was before such possession was taken so far as in his opinion, after consulting such local authorities as appear to him to be concerned, is reasonably practicable'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Amendment proposed: No. 142, in page 7, line 21, leave out from ' shall' to 'subject' in line 22.—[Mr. Millan.]

Mr. Grimond: This amendment meets the point embodied in an amendment in my name. I want to refer to a matter of which the Minister of State is aware. Under Section 27 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1972 a planning; authority may impose certain conditions on a planning consent, but it may impose conditions for reinstatement of the land only at the end of a specified period. This leads to difficulty in oil-related undertakings, because we do not know

the length of the period. I put that on the record and ask the Minister to say that he is considering the matter.

Mr. Millan: The effect of Government Amendment No. 77 is to require the Secretary of State to consult local authorities on the question of reinstatement, whether or not he is considering use of the land for another purpose as an alternative to reinstatement. As the Bill is drafted, the Secretry of State can proceed to reinstate the land or to secure its reinstatement without consulting local authorities and need carry out the reinstatement only to such extent as in his opinion is reasonably practicable. Local authorities need become involved only if the Secretary of State is contemplating a course of action other than reinstatement. That is how the Bill is drafted at present.
11.30 p.m.
Representations were made to us by the local authorities, among others, to the effect that we ought to consult them beforehand—at the start of the procedure —before we decided whether it was desirable and practicable to reinstate as well as be involved in possible alternative developments. That is what we have now done by the amendment.
Amendment No. 80 is consequential.
The amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) would delete the words
so far as in his opinion is reasonably practicable ".
The question is whether that would be realistic. Reinstatement to the precise condition in which the land was originally is normally a physical impossibility, but that would be the obligation placed on local authorities if the right hon. Gentleman's amendment were accepted. I hope, therefore, that he will not press it, but will accept the Government amendment, which introduces another important element of local authority consultation.

Mr. Grimond: I prefer the Government amendment to my own one.

Amendment agreed to.

[Mr. GEORGE THOMAS in the Chair]

Mr. Fairbairn: I beg to move Amendment No. 78, in page 7, line 22, leave


out from 'practicable' to 'reinstate' in line 23.

The Chairman: With this amendment we are to take the following amendments:
No. 79, in page 7, line 25, leave out subsection (2).
No. 81, in page 7, line 29, leave out 'or'.
No. 82, in page 7, line 30, leave out paragraph (b).
No. 83, in page 7, line 32, leave out from ' in a case within paragraph (a)' and insert' such case '.

Mr. Fairbairn: With the concomitant Amendment No. 79 this, in effect, removes the words in subsection (1) "subject to subsection (2)" and removes subsection (2). I am sure that the purpose of the clause is basically in favour of reinstatement. I understand from the Bill that the idea is that the Firth of Cromarty should not be ill-treated like the Firth of Clyde but should be returned to its previous condition.
I think that the words in subsection (1)
so far as in his opinion is reasonably practicable
are a sufficient safeguard in these circumstances. I would have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee were anxious to have a bias in favour of reinstatement, and it would seem reasonable that the additional attempt to take land for another use than reinstatement should be removed.

Mr. Millan: As the hon. Member has said, there is a presumption towards reinstatement in the clause. The rubric makes that clear. But that is subject to qualifications. The qualifications are not simply related to the physical condition of the land and the physical possibilities involved in reinstatement; they are also very much related to the whole local situation, because one must remember that one is not dealing simply with a physical problem. In the case of a development which has been going on for some years the land will have been physically affected. A community will have been built up; there will be people working there, and there will be houses and other community facilities. If, at the end of any period, that development is

no longer appropriate for that site it does not follow that the only desirable thing —or the desirable thing at all—is to revert to the condition that the land was in before the development originally took place.
There is a possibility of an alternative use for the land, and indeed the local authority will demand it. In some cases the use may be not for industrial but for recreational development. Any alternative embracing industrial development will be subject to normal planning safeguards. Subject to those safeguards, subsection (2) must be included in the Bill to allow these alternative uses to take place.
The effect of the amendments would be to eliminate that possibility altogether. That would very much damage the effect of the clause and, apart from the community as a whole, it would be bitterly and vehemently resisted by the local authority. I ask the Committee not to accede to the amendments.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the Minister clarify one matter? I accept the principle of the Minister's argument that when communities are being built up, tremendous repercussions could result if the whole process came to a grinding halt and there were no employment in the community. There may be the safeguard that if the land use were changed the change of use would be subject to planning approval. These considerations are most important because the Government are using wide compulsory purchase powers initially to take this land out of current use into oil uses.
I believe that it would be wrong to let this process slip into a second type of use. If a dry dock construction is turned into a use for recreational purposes, it is a change of use from industrial to recreational, and in that situation planning procedures would apply. What would worry me would be the case where a dry dock structure could be used for, say, shipbuilding purposes or for an engraving dock—a use similar to the physical nature of the use of the land which would not necessarily require planning approval since it could be regarded as continuing the purpose of that land. However, people living in the area would feel that a considerable change of use had occurred.
I am trying to be constructive. I am prepared to accept a ministerial assurance that planning approval would apply to a change of use after the oil development needs had come to an end, but I still have a slight worry there may be circumstances where a change might be of such a marginal nature that planning procedures might not come into play. I should like an assurance from the Minister on this point.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I accept the argument that subsection (2)(a) is necessary, but I am not so sure about subsection (2)(b). Can the Minister give us the reason for subsection (2)(b) as at present drafted?

Mr. Millan: The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) asked about the planning aspect of the matter. I have already said that the normal planning considerations will apply. In the kind of situation that he suggested might arise, I should think that there would be need for planning permission to be granted. If I am wrong about that, I will let him know. However, my information is that that would happen.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) asked why we needed paragraph (b),
should not for any other reason be reinstated as aforesaid".
The simple answer is that, as a result of the use of the site, we may have an area which, although no immediate alternative use is in view, is more valuable than it was originally. For example, we may have a site which was simply rough grazing, now converted into a dry dock, for which there may be no immediate alternative use. Subsection (2)(a) would not apply to that. The effect of the amendment would be to convert the dry dock back to rough grazing. That would be a fairly formidable operation, and quite pointless. Therefore, we need paragraph (b) to give us a certain commonsense flexibility, after consultations with the local authority, with the object of either physical reinstatement or of producing a solution that would be in the interests of the inhabitants of the area if physical reinstatement were not to take place.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I hesistate to intervene in a Scottish debate, but, having had experience of the building of the Mulberry Harbour, for which purpose land was taken for building concrete structures similar to what is proposed to be done here, I find myself disagreeing with the Minister.
For the purpose of building the Mulberry Harbour, land was taken in the New Forest. Later alternative uses were found for that land. If fish farming, for instance, were decided to be carried on after these operations had ceased, would it be necessary to get planning consent? Would such an activity open the gates to make it possible to use such land for other industrial purposes without planning consent? Does "alternative use" mean that the land can be used for any other purpose? If so, it plays absolute havoc with the whole of our planning procedure.

Mr. Millan: The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has come into the debate rather late to understand what we are attempting to do here. If he had been here for our earlier debates, I think that some of these matters might have been clear to him.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I think that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) is fair. It follows the point that I made about planning permission. I am not sure that the Minister is right. I accept his undertaking that he will look into the matter again and write to me about it. However, if the use of a site is a continuing industrial use, planning permission is not required. When the building of oil production platforms ceases and the site is used as a graving dock for ships, or whatever else it may be, which is a continuing industrial use, planning permission is not necessary.
The circumstances described by my hon. Friend—using a site as a fish farm —may be construed as a different use. I do not know. Therefore, I should like some clarification on this matter. Would planning permission need to be applied for before the change of use took place?

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Millan: I do not think that I said that in every case we would have to have planning permission applied for.


But the hon. Gentleman was giving an example in which the previous use and the prospective use were of a very considerably different nature. What I said was that in those circumstances my advice was that planning procedures would have to be gone through. If I am wrong about this, it will be a very appropriate point for the particular amendment I have promised to table on Report on planning procedures generally, and we could then take the matter up. But as I understand the position, I think that what I have said on this matter so far is accurate.

Mr. Fairbairn: The more I have listened to the various assurances given by the Minister tonight, the more I have been concerned that the apparent spirit of the Bill will not be kept. Here we have the Minister saying, in reply to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) for instance, that if a dry dock is built, say, on the Firth of Cromarty, no use for which dock can be found later, it would be ridiculous to turn it back to rough grazing. But what are we to have instead? We are to have on the Firth of Cromarty a lot of derelict dry docks.
It is because the clause pretends to be in favour of reinstatement and is not in favour of reinstatement that I am suspicious of the whole spirit of the Bill. I ask the Minister urgently to consider the fact that if we merely say that one can have reinstatement, perhaps, but that any excuse will be enough not to have it, we shall not get reinstatement.
As I understood the purpose of the Bill, it was that for a short time we would have, so to speak, to pollute and develop certain valuable parts of the coast of Scotland, which would then be restored. But not at all. We shall be left with all the dry docks. I sincerely urge the Minister to consider that implication.
With great reluctance I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment. I say "reluctance" because it seems to be contrary to any sensible spirit which the Bill pretends to leave in that subsection. I do this with the greatest misgivings.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 80, in page 7, line 26, leave out

'such local authorities as appear to him to be concerned'
and insert ' as aforesaid '.—[Mr. Millan.]

Mr. Fairbairn: I beg to move Amendment No. 84, in page 7, line 35, at end add—
'(2) Such land as is no longer needed for the purposes of this Act shall be offered to the person or body from whom it was acquired and thereafter exposed to public sale '.

The Chairman: With this we are to take Amendment No. 91, in page 8, line 35, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Fairbairn: I shall come later to Amendment No. 91. The purpose of Amendment No. 84 is to ensure that the Government really are interested in reinstatement and that they shall offer the land back to the person or body to whom it previously belonged. This is a slight variation of the Crichel Down procedure, whereby it is offered to other Government Departments and then to the previous owner. However, in view particularly of later clauses with regard to unalienable land, the amendment would seem entirely appropriate.
I come to Amendment 91. Most of the Bill means very little, but this clause definitely means nothing. I shall read it. We must remember that the Bill permits the Secretary of State to acquire land under its provisions only for the purposes set out in Clause 1—namely,
for any purpose relating to exploration for or exploitation of offshore petroleum.
That is the only right that he has to obtain this land.
Clause 10(2) reads:
The Secretary of State may dispose of the whole of his interest in any land, of which possession has been taken under this Act, to any body or person in order to enable them to provide any such housing, services or facilities as are required in terms of paragraph (d) of section 1(2) of this Act;".
However, the Secretary of State is not allowed to do so unless
the land is no longer needed for any purpose for which land may be acquired under this Act.
In other words, only when the Secretary of State discovers it is not needed may he dispose of it to somebody who needs it for a purpose. The only condition under which the land may be disposed of is one under which the Secretary of State is not allowed to hold the land. That is


what the clause says. It says it blandly. It may be that the Mad Hatter wrote this Bill. It would appear so. He certainly wrote this clause, if no other. It says that the only conditions under which land may be held for the purposes of this Bill are those which have ceased to apply. It is a narrow point, but I would not have thought it needed a lawyer to notice it. I should be pleased to have the Minister's observations.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman moved two amendments. Amendment No. 84 would require the Secretary of State to offer land back to the original owners before it is exposed for public sale. Amendment No. 91 is consequential, and removes the present powers in the Bill dealing with the disposal of land.
If the hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) were successful with his amendment there would be no method left to the Secretary of State by which he could dispose of the land. I hope the hon. Gentleman realises the consequences of that amendment.
Perhaps I should draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the nature of Clause 8(1), which is not to cause reinstatement to be made to the original owners of the land. There has been some misunderstanding about this on the part of the Opposition, and certainly by the hon. Gentleman. This clause will allow the land to be restored and reinstated to its original condition before possession was taken, which is a different matter.
We do not regard it as acceptable that land acquired should simply be offered back to the original owners, as the hon,. Gentleman proposes in his amendment. By virtue of his powers under this Bill the Secretary of State may well have invested large sums of public money in these developments. It would be wrong that this should rebound to the benefit of the original private owners. Apart from that, a debt is owed to the community in whose locality the development has taken place and to those who have found new employment there. Offering the land back to the original owners does not seem to us to be prima facie the best way of ensuring that the community's obligations are met.
That is a fundamental point of opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There is a point of principle here in relation to the Crichel Down procedure.
In the case of land no longer required for the purposes of this Act, would it first be offered to other Government Departments, which is the way the Crichel Down procedure works, or would it be offered to the original owners before being offered to public authorities?

Mr. John Smith: As regards the Crichel Down procedure, the general procedure followed in disposing of surplus land by Government Departments is that it is offered, first, to other Government Departments and, secondly, to local authorities, and only if not thus required for public use is it disposed of on the open market. There is an exception to this in the case of surplus agricultural land.
The basis of that policy, which was established in 1954, is that surplus agricultural land acquired by a Government Department under compulsory purchase powers, or with such powers in the background, is offered back to the former owner at current market value unless another Department, on its own behalf or on behalf of a public authority, can satisfy Ministers that it has a stronger claim to the land.
The procedure was modified in 1967 so as to exclude from the offer-back requirement any agricultural land with planning permission for development or likely to obtain that permission. It would be in the last category that any land would be affected under the Bill. So it is a modified procedure.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If the land had not been developed, presumably it would be offered back and the Crichel Down procedure would apply.

Mr. Smith: I do not see that reinstatement would arise from that position. I am dealing with land acquired "for the purposes".

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I do not follow that argument. The Minister says that the land will be reinstated, yet he does not want to offer it back to the original owner, who would thereby get a fat profit out of the money spent on it by the Government in the meantime. How can the owner benefit if the land is reinstated?

Mr. Smith: It cannot be reinstated, because development has taken place —

Mr. Fairbairn: Mr. Fairbairn rose —

Mr. Smith: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). The purpose of reinstatement is to restore it. We have to take account of the fact that developments have taken place. But we recognise that platform construction will have come to an end. There will have to be a use for the land at the end of that time, and this provision gives the Secretary of State power to deal with that.

Mr. Fairbairn: I do not understand that point. May I refer the Minister to the words of subsection (1):
… reinstate it, or secure its reinstatement, to the condition in which it was before such possession was taken.
We are back where we started: we start with the Sahara Desert, and we end with it. Why should not the sheikhs get it back when we have finished with it?

Mr. Smith: The hon. and learned Gentleman is lowering the tone of the debate with remarks of that kind. In subsection (1) we also find the words
so far as in his opinion is reasonably practicable",
and that is a considerable qualification.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that it is possible to take land which has been used for platform construction and to restore it to its original condition, he is engaged in a foolish pursuit. We will have developments taking place—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Mr. Buchanan-Smith rose—

Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman contain himself? We are giving the Secretary of State powers to reinstate the land so far as reasonably practicable. Those words are stated clearly in the Bill.
There is a problem of what we do with the land after the period for which it has been compulsorily acquired has expired. These provisions give the Secretary of State wide powers to deal with that in a way useful to the community. The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) says that priority should be given to the

former owners of the land. We believe that they are not the people to be considered first, which is why he resists the amendment—

Mr. Fairbairn: Why?

Mr. Smith: Because of the interests of the people employed in the developments which have taken place and the interests of the community affected by them. If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not understand that point, there is too wide a gulf to bridge in this debate.

[Mr. JOHN WELLS in the Chair]

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Minister has not answered the second amendment, about the meaning of Clause 10(1). The meaning is very difficult to understand. Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, I hope that he will speak to that.
However, I return to the main point, which is what "reinstatement" means. I accept the Minister's argument that if the site is to continue in an industrial use and planning permission has been obtained, obviously the Crichel Down procedure will not apply. I accept and understand that.
12 midnight.
The hon. Gentleman has been very short-tempered and impatient about what happens when reinstatement takes place. Does "reinstatement" mean reinstatement, or not? If it does mean reinstatement, surely it means,
to the condition in which it was before such possession was taken.
I cannot believe that even a Labour Government would reinstate the land back to agricultural condition and then put planning permission on it. That would be a queer way to do it. If the land is worth putting back to its original condition, presumably it is because it is thought right for it to go back into that condition. That is the point to which our questions are directed.
The hon. Gentleman says that once the land has been used for oil purposes, he would not dream of putting it back in the orginial position. But that is not what the Bill says. It is entirely practical in many cases to put land back to its original condition—for example, in Fife, open-cast mines have been reinstated to the original good agricultural land, and the same sort of thing has happened in


Wales. Where the land is reinstated, it is the spirit of the clause, which we support, that it should be returned to its original condition, such as agriculture. In these circumstances surely the Crichel Down procedure must apply. We want an assurance on that.

Mr. John Smith: I was answering the amendment put to the Committee. The difference between us is not one about precisely what is going to happen. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the purpose is to reinstate the land, but that obligation is qualified with the phrase
so far as … is reasonably practicable.
in subsection (1) and qualified in subsection (2) to cover circumstances where it may not be possible to do it. We must have a reasonably flexible situation. It may not be possible to restore the land concerned to precisely the use it had before.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We accept that.

Mr. Smith: But the hon. Gentleman says that and then supports an amendment which says that, instead of our having regard for the community, we should have regard for the owners of the land. We do not believe that they should be given priority.
Finally, if we do not have Clause 10, we shall not find it possible to dispose of the land.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I accept that the amendment may not technically, deal precisely with the situation. I also understand that in certain circumstances the land will not be reinstated for good reasons, social and otherwise, to the benefit of the community in the area. But there will be circumstances, if the clause means what it says, in which the land will be reinstated into its original condition—returning to fields or heather or agriculture—and surely that is where the Crichel Down procedure applies. Will that procedure apply or not? If not, why not?

Mr. Smith: It depends on the situation when it arises. The hon. Gentleman is pursuing the matter at some length. Perhaps I may now deal with it by saying that I will look into the points which have been raised and will communicate

with hon. Members later. I am not saying that there is merit in the amendment, but it is now fairly late and we have had an exchange on this matter, in which it seems that bad temper has been ascribed solely to me. Recent contributions suggest that the bad temper is more universal. We could bandy words about for a considerable time on this subject. I shall look into the position and see whether we cannot bring forward some reassurance to hon. Members.

Mr. Fairbairn: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) is someone who rarely loses his temper. I hope that he will not lose it because he has been accused of doing so.
I think that the Minister is missing the purpose of the amendment. There is little difference between us. Let us suppose that the Secretary of State thought that he needed 500 acres and in fact used only 50. Should not the remaining 450 acres be reinstated or offered to the original owner, who may be the surround-farmer, to farm once again? That seems to be a reasonable proposition. Indestructible pyramids will not be built on all the land that is taken.
I accept the Minister's assurance that he will consider the matter at a time of day when tempers are cooler. I urge him to consider more carefully Clause 10(2), which I would remind him means nothing. To dispose of the land the Secretary of State has to dispose of it to those who are to provide facilities, services or housing required in the terms set out in paragraph (d) of Section 1(2) of the Act. If disposal is to be carried out in that way it must be land that is required under Section 1 of the Act. But the only condition placed upon him selling the land for the purposes required under the Act is if it is no longer needed for any purpose under the Act. If that does not mean nothing I do not know what does mean nothing. Even at this time of night I am capable of seeing that. I hope that the Minister will consider this matter again in the morning. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is the morning."] It is not my morning. It is still my night.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 85, in page 7, line 35, at end add—
'(3) The Secretary of State shall consult the Countryside Commission and any other bodies which he considers appropriate before any land is reinstated'.
This amendment is of a probing nature. Where land is to be reinstated—I must return to the question of reinstatement and not re-use—there have been representations from the Countryside Commission and other bodies, as the Minister is probably aware, that they should be consulted. They have experience and knowledge of these matters. Nature Conservancy is another body which I should mention.
It may not be appropriate to write such a requirement into the Bill, but I hope that where reinstatement takes place to the original natural condition, where there was no industrial use beforehand, the Secretary of State will consider consulting bodies such as the Countryside Commission and Nature Conservancy, whose advice and help can be useful in such circumstances.

Mr. Dalyell: I hope that the Committee realises that the cost of reinstatement to what might be called Countryside Commission standards can be considerable. To what extent will be there be emphasis on collecting money in the years of plenty to pay for reinstatement up to the kind of standard that is required? The reinstatement that has been asked for in places such as the Forth Estuary has been found to involve costs which are out of all proportion to anythink that was expected. How will money be gathered as a sort of insurance for reinstatement in the years of plenty?

Mr. Millan: There will be general provisions concerning reinstatement and for obtaining the necessary money in connection with any piece of land acquired by the Secretary of State under the Bill. Where planning permission is granted by a local planning authority ofter the Bill is enacted the clause will enable obligations to be placed on the developer to provide the necessary money for reinstatement. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said, this can be a very expensive business.
As for the amendment, I am glad that the hon. Member for North Angus and

Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has made clear that he is referring to the restrictive circumstances which involve reinstatement and not an alternative development.
On the wider issue, I think that the hon. Member accepts my earlier point that it is the local authority—apart from the Secretary of State, who has the primary obligation—which is the obvious body to be consulted and which is most concerned.
I take the point that if reinstatement is the solution there is something to be said for consulting the Countryside Commission and other bodies which have a specific interest in the matter. There would be no difficulty in consulting the commission by administrative means. It is a statutory body appointed by the Secretary of State.
I am reluctant to write into the Bill specific obligations for particular bodies. If the hon. Member is willing to withdraw his amendment I shall consider writing in the proposition that where reinstatement is involved the Secretary of State might also consult other bodies as he might consider appropriate. If the hon. Member will leave the matter there I shall see whether we could meet the spirit of the amendment in some other way.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I certainly accept the spirit of the Minister of State's assurance and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

>ARRANGEMENTS TO ENSURE REINSTATEMENT OF OTHER LAND DEVELOPED FOR PURPOSES CONNECTED WITH OFFSHORE PETROLEUM.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move Amendment No. 88, in Clause 9, page 8, line 4, leave out subsection (2).

The Temporary Chairman: With it it will be convenient also to take the following amendments:
No. 89, in page 8, line 18, leave out subsection (4), and No. 90 in page 8. line 23, at end add:
'(5) The imposition of a requirement under subsection (1) or subsection (3) shall be subject


to variation or confirmation on appeal to the Scottish Land Court'.

Mr. Wilson: Subsection (1) will be generally welcomed by local authorities as an addition to their powers for enforcing planning agreements or planning consents issued in connection with offshore petroleum development. I understand that the provision gives a power where none existed before. Although such a requirement was made a condition of planning consent in the case of Argyll County Council and McAlpines at Ardyne, with the company's consent and agreement, without the benefit of that subsection that condition might have been unenforceable.
Subsection (2) says that
No requirement under subsection (1) above may be imposed except with the approval of the Secretary of State.
If the Government consider that it is appropriate under subsection (1) to give a local authority certain powers the additional discretion of making the necessary arrangements should also be conferred upon that local authority without the need to consult the Government again. Subsection (2) in a sense tends to weaken some of the powers in subsection (1) and would cause the local authority continually to look over its shoulder at what the Government might care to suggest.
This is basically a probing amendment and I shall be interested to see what response it draws from the Government. In these days, when there is regionalisation of local government, and when there is an intention to devolve as much power as possible from central Government, subsection (2) might be irrelevant.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I hope that the Minister will think carefully about accepting the amendment, and understand that there is another side to the case. Subsections (2) and (4) are useful in that they act as a restraint on local authorities which might make unreasonable demands. How is a firm to put money aside for restoration which might not take place for 20 or 30 years? No one would have the slightest idea what it would cost then, in view of the way inflation is going, or what it might physically involve. A great deal of money would be tied up unreasonably.
It has been suggested that so-called restoration bonds might be the answer. By that means firms could take out virtually an insurance, but the cost is frightening. Another suggestion is a fund to which all the companies would contribute, thus building up a large sum to carry out restoration when required. The difficulty is that a great deal of money would be tied up unnecessarily for a long period, and the levy required to finance it would be unfair because of the variation in the size and scale of developments.
The best solution, which I hope the Government will accept, is to have a fallback fund, a kind of default fund, which could be used only when firms failed to carry out their restoration obligations. That has the support of the CBI, which has written to me and other hon. Members. Firms could pay a limited levy for this kind of insurance.
I regard subsections (2) and (4) as useful safeguards, and hope that the Minister will retain them.

Mr. Fairbairn: I wish to probe the matter, which is a difficult one for the Minister. It is difficult to say what the cost of reinstatement might be when one has no knowledge of what development will take place. What sort of directions might the Secretary of State give under subsection (4)?
In my Amendment No. 90 I say that the imposition of a requirement under subsections (1) or (3) should be subject to variation or confirmation on appeal to the Scottish Land Court. In a situation in which a price may be unrelated to the capacity of a tenderer to pay, a body outside the Government should have a say in confirming it or denying it. Those who advise Governments are not always the wisest of people. A body outside Government might be able to take a more impartial view.

Mr. Millan: We are dealing with a new provision. I hope that after I have explained what we are trying to do none of the amendments will be pressed.
There are a number of different considerations. It has not been possible so far for a planning authority to have a planning condition enforceable in terms of money. There are planning conditions which can be enforced, but not conditions


committing the developer to provide certain sums for a particular purpose.
With reinstatement it is important that we should have not only planning conditions but some assurance that the money will be there to do the physical job at the end of the day. The purpose of Clause 9(1) is to provide for that. It is necessary to proceed with a little caution here for a number of reasons. We are dealing with new territory. It will not be easy for local authorities necessarily in the first instance to calculate what the reinstatement costs might be. I say that without criticising them.
They may wish to be on the safe side and impose too onerous obligations on developers. On the other hand, they may, equally, under-estimate what is likely to be involved and impose too generous conditions on the developer. It is best to proceed by having the approval of the Secretary of State, which is what is provided under subsection (2). The subsection also has to be read in conjunction with subsection (4) which deals with the Secretary of State's powers to give directions.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cath-cart (Mr. Taylor) mentioned a number of ideas for providing the procedures for building up reinstatement funds. The proposals he mentioned were described and discussed in a report which the Oil Development Council produced for the Government. The Government are certainly interested in discussing this, and we have had preliminary consultations with insurance companies to see whether we could work out a scheme which would provide for the purposes of this clause. If we are to do this there would have to be some kind of assured market for the insurance companies.
It could not be done simply on a "one-off "basis. Therefore, we want to do this in a way which will be effective from everyone's point of view, in a way which will guarantee reinstatement to the level that the local authority may wish reasonably to impose. We do not want undue obligations to be imposed on the developer, particularly in a way which would involve him in setting aside all the money for reinstatement at the start of the development when from his point of view, that may be an extremely inconvenient time, financially. We want to main-

tain flexibility with a certain amount of control by the Secretary of State so that when we can work out some kind of solution which would apply to more than one site we will be able to operate it.
I have not found that the local authorities have objected in any way to Clause 9. They very much welcome the new power they are getting here. They realise that this is an area in which we must move with a certain amount of caution and try to get the right solution. If we were to do it other than through the Secretary of State I am advised that the Scottish Land Court would not be the appropriate body.
I hope that with that explanation this clause will be generally acceptable. This is new territory but it is a useful provision and we are determined to make it work effectively.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: While I agree with much of what the Minister has said about the need for some form of central direction or guidance in connection with these new provisions, may I ask him whether he would not agree that this would be possible by using the terms of the powers contained in Clause 9 (4)? This would allow the Secretary of State to make general directions with regard to the exercise of the powers and the terms of arrangements thereunder:
and such directions may either be given generally or may relate to a particular application or to applications of a class specified in the direction".
Does reliance on subsection (4) not rule out the need for subsection (2)? If the Minister is prepared to give guidance to the local authorities would that not be sufficient? Would he not then be prepared to leave it to local authorities to take cognisance of the guidance he has given?

Mr. Millan: It may be that if we were more experienced in this matter we could do without subsection (2), but I am not sure that the two provisions overlap. I think there is something in subsection (2) that would not in any circumstances be included in subsection (4). But even if that were not so I should be reluctant to take out subsection (2) and rely on directions in an area in which there is still a good deal of work to be done, and we are not sure that we shall be able to work out something that will be effective simply by means of directions.
I should prefer this provision to remain in the Bill. I do not think local authorities will find this burdensome. Nor, given the general tenor of the Bill, do I think developers will find it burdensome either.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: In the light of those remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

EXECUTION OF WORKS AND DISPOSAL OF LAND HELD UNDER ACT

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 92, in page 9, line 6, after 'Corporation', insert ' or any local authority'.

The Chairman: With this we are to take Government Amendment No. 94.

Mr. Millan: This is a provision which, as it stands, allows the Scottish Industrial Estates Corporation to act as the Secretary of State's agent in the execution of works or, for that matter, the disposal of land held under the Bill. It has been represented to us that in certain circumstances it might be sensible to have the local authority acting as the Secretary of State's agent, and we have responded to these suggestions by putting the local authorities in as possible agents for the Secretary of State. I am sure that will be acceptable to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 94, in page 9, line 13, after 'Corporation', insert:
'or by a local authority'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO ACQUISITION AND APPROPRIATION OF LAND

Miss Harvie Anderson: I beg to move Amendment No. 98, in page 9, line 3:5, leave out subsection (3).
The object of the amendment must be clear. It is simply and importantly to retain inalienable land as such. I am sorry that it is such a late hour—or

should I say early hour?—because I should have liked to take this at some length. But I know that that will not be the wish of the Committee, and I shall therefore deal with it as briefly as possible.
I think it is true to say that this part of the Bill has caused as much widespread concern as any part of this measure, and it breaches an important matter that has hitherto been regarded as sacred. Much of the land with which we are concerned in the amendment has been given in the belief that inalienability would stand the test of time, and a very long time at that. We are assailing a matter that many judged would never be touched.
Much of the land held by the National Trust is held for the benefit of the nation and of a wide public. The feeling that inalienability would stand has greatly influenced those who have given the land, and it is a matter that influences those who are concerned with making such gifts.
We must have a definite explanation of how it comes about that this subsection has to be included in the Bill. I do not want to go into this argument in detail, but this provision has given rise to great concern, which I have sought briefly to express, and I hope very much that the Government will find it possible to accept the amendment.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: It is right that someone on these benches should support the argument of the right hon. Lady the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson). This provision breaches undertakings that have been accepted in the past, and it is viewed not only by the National Trust in England and the National Trust for Scotland, but by many other bodies as well, with deep concern. It is difficult to understand why my right hon. and hon. Friends think it necessary to include this provision.
I will not go into the history, except simply to say that neither the National Trust for Scotland nor the National Trust in England has used the special parliamentary procedure which has been reserved to those bodies in any unconscionable way. Indeed, the National Trust for Scotland has never used it. That does not mean that the power is any the less


valuable for that. There are many occasions on which it is valuable for it to be known that the power is in the trust's hands to invoke the special parliamentary procedure.
The National Trust for England has used the power once over a period of about 70 years and then only after very careful consideration. Therefore, it cannot be said that we are dealing with bodies that wish to cause trouble in their use of this power. They do not arrogate to themselves the right of omniscience.
Parliament has the right under the special parliamentary procedure under the National Trust Acts to challenge the position of the National Trust and to have its way, but only after the special procedure has been followed and a joint committee established. That does not necessarily involve a long period. It is entirely up to the Government of the day to determine how long they leave for this process.
I see no reason why this procedure should not be left to operate as it does today. I give notice to my hon. Friend that, although I supported him earlier in a proposal about which we felt deeply, I should find it very difficult to do so on this issue which, whatever he may say, could be regarded as a precedent in other fields and could weaken the position and authority of the National Trust and, above all, endanger the likelihood of further gifts of important land to the trust in England and in Scotland. That is the issue above all which concerns the trust.
Although I appreciate the Minister's good intentions, and I particularly welcome his action with regard to the Drambuie case, which was settled very happily from the point of view of many of us, nevertheless no Minister can bind his successor, and, therefore, even though I am sure that he would wish to give us assurances about the kind of action he wishes to take, that of itself will not be sufficient to satisfy some of us on this side and some hon. Members opposite.

Mr. George Thompson: I am a Member of the National Trust for Scotland and I, too, am very worried about this provision. Like the right hon. Lady the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) and the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkin-

sop), I believe that the effect of this provision will be to dry up, or at least to decrease, the flow of gifts and bequests to the trust.
I understand that there are only 40 miles out of 6,400 miles of the Scottish coastline that belong to the trust. I also understand that at times the way to the heart of the Scottish Office is via the Secretary of State's favourite poet. I should like to quote from Robert Burns:
A daimen-icker in a thrave
S a sma' request ".
The hon. Member will
get a blessing wi the lave,
And never miss't! 
I shall translate that for the benefit of any hon. Member who may not have the Scots dialect at his fingertips. It means that a single ear of corn in 24 sheaves would never be missed by the hon. Member. I suggest that he should give the National Trust this little ear of corn that we seek through the amendment.

Mr. Buchan: I have been entering the Chamber from time to time to make sure that I did not miss my chance to say something to the amendment. I take the point in the quotation from Burns, and the point about the 40 miles of coastline on the West Coast of Scotland, but I am reminded of the situation in Drumbuie, where, despite the small fraction of coastline belonging to the National Trust, two powerful companies decided to try to establish themselves, and in the process gave evidence which later events have shown to be highly suspect. They did not get what they wanted in this area, and then they decided to do the same thing in another.
If we are to use the speeded-up process, and if pressure is to be exerted, the same danger may occur again. I do not know whether my hon. Friend can accept the amendment. There may be problems. What is important is that some kind of apparatus of investigation and ministerial intervention should be provided before we proceed further.

Mr. Fairbairn: This is a very serious matter of principle. It is often said that politicians are not popular because they do not keep their word. The Bill starts with a clause that could mean anything, goes through a clause that means nothing,


and then refers to something which Parliament has defined as inalienable but is now said to be alienable. This is contrary to the principle of the Bill and is wrong. It cannot be right to provide that something is inalienable and then to say that it is alienable by the Secretary of State, of all thieves.
The time has come to look carefully at the principle involved.

Mr. Millan: I do not think that there are any absolutes here. The National Trust itself can feu inalienable land for development, and it does that to a considerable extent. As I understand it, the trust has done that for other pieces of land in the Drambuie area. That is a fact, but that is not my argument.
The expedited acquisition procedure will not apply until the planning procedure has been gone through. It is inconceivable that there would be a proposition, if that happens—and there is nothing in prospect at the moment affecting the National Trust land—which would not be subject to the full rigours of the planning procedure, and, one would have thought—as in the case of the Drambuie inquiry—a very protracted public inquiry.
Therefore, the basic arguments about whether the land should be used for development at all are to be deployed at the public inquiry, or certainly through the planning procedure itself. In the case of the Drumbuie application—I do not wish to go into its merits, or into what companies or other parties may have said at the inquiry—it was true that the National Trust was deployed with great skill and at considerable length.
In coming to a decision on the report of the Drumbuie inquiry, it weighed heavily with my right hon. Friend that the land concerned was inalienable land of the National Trust. I think that the great care and sympathy with which my right hon. Friend approached the National Trust's interest in Drumbuie should be acknowledged.
To return to the general proposition, if any subsequent case should arise the full planning procedures will be gone through and the basic case on planning grounds will be argued before any planning decision has been reached. It is

only after the planning decision has been reached that the question of an expedited acquisition order arises.
I was asked about ministerial intervention. The expedited order is an act of the Secretary of State and, therefore, to that extent there is ministerial involvement. Under the Bill a time limit will be extended for representation to be made on the expedited acquisition order. Therefore, that represents another step in the procedure in which the National Trust could be deployed.
There is then the parliamentary procedure involving an affirmative resolution. Therefore, there is full parliamentary protection. At present inalienability is subject to a qualification. There is a special parliamentary procedure which can be used to set inalienability aside. If we were simply making a change which eliminated parliamentary procedure and replaced it by other safeguards, however well-designed or comprehensive, I would take the view that that might bite into the long-understood protection which is given to inalienable land held by the National Trust. But we are satisfied that under the present parliamentary procedure, and indeed with the new parliamentary procedure provided for in the Bill by means of an affirmative resolution, if it wished to argue against expedited acquisition orders it would be fully protected by the provisions of the Bill.
An important principle is involved. It has been recognised that there can be no absolute inalienability for any piece of land held by any body, however distinguished and fine its record is. It is already recognised by the fact that a special parliamentary procedure can take place. We are seeking to apply another parliamentary procedure and in principle it is right that the procedure should apply to inalienable land.
12.45 a.m.
Subsection (3) need not have been in the Bill. Without it the Bill would apply to National Trust land in any case. The subsection was put in for the avoidance of doubt. I expressly wished to make clear what we were doing. I did not want it done surreptitiously by tucking away this proposal in an incomprehensible amendment somewhere in the schedule. I wanted it to be clear on the face of the Bill so that this discussion could take place.
I realise that there are very strong feelings about this matter. I admire what the National Trust does in both Scotland and England. I have met representatives of the National Trust for both Scotland and England. I know that they are not by any means satisfied with what I have been able to tell them, although they welcomed the proposal that I outlined for the affirmative procedure which has now been written into the Bill.
There is a danger that hon. Members who are most emphatic in their support of the National Trust in this matter might exaggerate the perils in which it may be placed by the Bill as drafted. I do not believe that there is any need for anyone who is thinking of giving his land to the National Trust to feel any degree of apprehension. People should not be put off by what is in the Bill or by hon. Members who are critical of it perhaps exaggerating the seriousness and significance of it. The general powers and the important role that the National Trust plays in our national life are recognised.

I should also like to place on record that the Government will not use this provision as a precedent for similar provisions in other legislation. In fact, I told the National Trust representatives who came to see me that I could undertake that we would not use it as a precedent for any other legislation.

I think that, in the context of what we are trying to do and the urgency with which expedited acquisition orders may be required, we have struck the right balance. Therefore, I cannot recommend the Committee to accept the amendment.

Miss Harvie Anderson: We have a simple proposition before us on which we have not had satisfactory assurances. We are simply seeking to preserve the present position of inalienability. As we have had no suitable assurances to preserve that position, I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 105, Noes 151.

Division No 29.] 
AYES
[12.50 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Grieve, Percy
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff N.W.)


Atkins, Rt Han H. (Spelthorne)
Grist, Ian
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hampson, Dr Keith
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Banks, Robert
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Shelton, William (Lambeth St.)


Benyon, W. R.
Henderson, Douglas
Shepherd, Colin


Biffen, John
Holland, Philip
Silvester, Fred


Biggs-Davison, John
Hunt, John
Sims, Roger


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
James, David
Speed, Keith


Bowden, Andrew (Brighton)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Spence, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Spicer, James (W. Dorset)


Brotherton, Michael
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Spicer, Michael (S. Worcester)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Lawrence, Ivan
Sproat, lain


Bulmer, Esmond
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Stainton, Keith


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Luce, Richard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Churchill, W. S.
MacCormick, lain
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, S)
Macfarlane, Neil
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
MacGregor, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Cockcroft, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Teddy (Glasgow C.)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Mates, Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Cope, John
Mather, Carol
Temple-Morris, P.


Corrie, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thompson George


Costain, A. P.
Mayhew, Patrick
Townsend Cyril D


Crawford, Douglas
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tugendhat, Christopher


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Monro, Hector
Viggers P.J.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Morrison, Peter (Chester)
Warren, kenneth


Durant, Tony
Nelson, Anthony
Weatherill, Bernard


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Neubert, Michael
Welsh, Andrew


Emery, Peter
Newton,Tony
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E.)


Eyre, Reginald
Page, John (Harrow West)
Young, Sir George(Ealing)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Parkinson, Cecil
Younger, Hon George


Fairgrieve, Russell
Pattie, Geoffrey



Farr, John
Percivsl, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N.)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)



Gardner, Edward (S. Fyide)
Reid, George
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Gerard Vaughan.


Gray, Hamish
Rifkind, Malcolm





NOES


Archer, Peter
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bidwell, Sydney


Armstrong, Ernest
Bates, Alf
Booth, Albert


Ashton, Joe
Bean, Robert E.
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Atkinson, Norman
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow Pr.)




Buchanan, Richard
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Radice, Giles


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P.)
Hefler, Eric S.
Richardson, Miss Jo


Campbell, Ian
Hooley, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cartwright, John
Horam, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Clemitson, I. M.
Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N.)
Rodgers, William (Teesside)


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rooker, J. W.


Concannon, J. D.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roper, John


Conlan, Bernard
John, Brynmor
Rose, Paul B.


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rowlands, Ted


Cox, Thomas (Wands, Toot)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sedgemore, B.


Cralgen, J. M. (Glasgow M.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Short, Rt Hon Edward (Newcastle C)


Cryer, Bob
Kelley, Richard
Sillars, James


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh.)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Dalyell, Tarn
Kinnock, Neil
Small, William


Davidson, Arthur
Lamond, James
Smith, John (N. Lanarkshire)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Snape, Peter


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Spearing, Nigel


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Loyden, Eddie
Stallard, A. W.


Dempsey, James
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stewart, Rt Hn Michael (H'smith, F)


Doig, Peter
Lyons, Edward (Bradtord W)
Stoddart, David


Dormand, Jack
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Stott, Roger


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McCartney, Hugh
Strang Gavin


Duffy, A. E. P.
McElhone, Frank
Taylor, (Bolton W)


Dunn, James A.
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dunnett, Jack
McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Madden, Max
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Edge, Geoffrey
Magee, Bryan
Tomlinson, John


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mahon, Simon
Urwin T.W.


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V.)


English, Michael
Maynard, Miss Joan
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Meacher, Michael
Ward, Michael


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wellbeloved James


Flannery, Martin
Mendelson, John
White, Franck R. (Bury)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
White, James (Glasaow P)


Ford, Ben T.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Willson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Forrester, John (The Wrekin)
Murray, Ronal king
Wilson, William (Coventry S.E.)


George, Bruce
Oakes, Gordon
Woodall Alec


Gilbert, Dr John
O'Halloran, Michael
Woof Robert


Golding, John
Orbach, Maurice
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Gourlay, Harry
Ovenden, John
Young, David, (Bolton E.)


Grant, John (Islington C.)
Park, George



Hamling, William
Parry, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hardy, Peter
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pendry, Tom
Mr. James Hamilton.


Hatton, Frank
Prescott, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

COMPENSATION FOR ADJOINING OWNERS; AND EXCLUSION OF ACTIONS FOR NUISANCE.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 100, in page 10, line 4, leave out subsection (2).
The Opposition object to this subsection, which deprives persons or bodies affected because of the provisions of the Bill, say by noise or dust or anything else of that nature, of the opportunity of proceeding with an action for nuisance in respect of the operations described earlier in the Bill. We believe that this is an unnecessary removal of a right, which a person has in other circum stances, to proceed with an indictment against those who are causing a nuis-

ance or disturbance. We think it is wrong to remove that right.
We have received representations on this Bill from a number of bodies outside the House, who believe that subsection (2) is unnecessary.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Fairbairn: It is essential to preserve the right to interdict. We do not understand the scope of the operations in the Bill. There may be many neighbouring companies which find that pollution prevents their operations, and they will have no right to interdict.
If hon. Members do not understand the law of nuisance and what interdict is, I can explain by saying that if I were to speak for an hour, it would be a nuisance, and hon. Members would have the right to interdict me—and I interdict myself.

The Temporal y Chairman: Mr.Gordon Wilson.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Mr. Gordon Wilson rose—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): Do not take long.

Mr. Wilson: Despite the temptation held out by the Government Chief Whip, I add only a brief comment on the background to this subsection.
As I understand it, there were two provisions to cover environmental nuisance. The first was that in commerce or in non-public life, there is the sanction of raising an action in the courts for interdict or damages or both. In many cases, this has proved a useful way, especially with the threat of interdict, of bringing the harm or nuisance to an end.
The second solution open to a person who is affected by a public nuisance is through the compensation provisions contained in the preceding paragraph, and I understand that acceptance of the one may rule out the action of interdict or nuisance of the other.
We reach the odd situation where we have provisions to allow commercial companies to engage in the normal activities of platform construction, yet the normal sanction under the common law of interdict or damages against them has been removed, and we have in their place statutory provisions for compensation. It seems to me that these are mixed.
There is one important advantage about the interdict procedure. It can be more threatening to an enterprise engaged in a project because, if it is successful, it will bring operations to a halt. It can be successful in restraining the enterprise from indulging in operations which are noxious or harmful. Most of us have cause to complain about environmental pollution in our constituencies.
I await the Minister's reply. But it seems to me that there is a degree of hybridity involved in the solutions proposed in the Bill. At the moment, my

view is that without the threat of an action of interdict the community may be left without protection.

Mr. John Smith: The Government's purpose in putting forward Clause 12(1) is to confer upon people who might have complaints the right of statutory compensation which the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 provides. We think that that might be beneficial to many people who might be affected by operations under this legislation.
One difficulty of giving this statutory right of compensation under the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act is that Section 1(6) says that unless immunity from actions for nuisance is conferred, the compensation in respect of public works shall not be paid. Therefore, we could not give the statutory protections of the 1973 Act and still preserve the action for nuisance. Hon. Members who wish to delete subsection (2) will have to bear the responsibility of denying people the protection which would be given by the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973.
Hon. Members say that it would not be possible to have an action of interdict if subsection (2) remained part of the Bill. That may be so, but we have to weigh in the balance whether this is more important than the rights under the Land Compensation Act. Apparently, the proposal is regarded as a little sinister, but we believe that the use of the Land Compensation Act is the better way to deal with the problem. We cannot always arrive at a perfect way of dealing with these matters, and we believe that in this instance the Land Compensation Act will provide better compensation for those affected. It is in that spirit and not the opposite that this provision was framed.

Question put. That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 92, Noes 160.

Division No. 30.]
AYES
[1.7 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Churchill, W. S.
Eyre, Reginald


Banks, Robert
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, S)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Benyon, W. R.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Biffen, John
Cockcroft, John
Farr, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N.)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cope, John
Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)


Bowden, Andrew (Brighton)
Corrie, John
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Costain, A. P.
Gray, Hamish


Brotherton, Michael
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Grieve, Percy


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Grist, Ian


Bulmer, Esmond
Durant, Tony
Hampson, Dr Keith




Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Nelson, Anthony
Spicer, Michael (S. Worcester)


Holland, Philip
Neubert, Michael
Sproat lain


Hunt, John
Newton, Tony
Stainton, Keith


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, John (Harrow West)
Stanbrook, Ivor


James, David
Parkinson, Cecil
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Kellelt-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Pattle, Geoffrey
Stradling Thomas, J.


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Percival, Ian
Taylor, Teddy (Glasgow C.)


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Tebbit, Norman


Lawrence, Ivan
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Temple-Morris, P.


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Ritkind, Malcolm
Townsend, Cyril D.


Luce, Richard
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff N.W.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Macfarlane, Neil
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Viggers, P. J.


MacGregor, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Warren, Kenneth


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shelton, William (Lambeth St.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Mates, Michael
Shepherd, Colin
Young, Sir George (Ealing)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Silvester, Fred
Younger, Hon George


Mayhew, Patrick
Sims, Roger



Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Monro, Hector
Speed, Keith
Mr. Spencer Le Merchant and


Morrison, Peter (Chester)
Spicer, James (W. Dorset)
Dr. Gerard Vaughan.




NOES


Anderson, Donald
Golding, John
Pendry, Tom


Archer, Peter
Gourlay, Harry
Prescott, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Grant, John (Islington C.)
Radlce, Giles


Ashton, Joe
Hamling, William
Reid, George


Atkinson, Norman
Hardy, Peter
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Harper, Joseph
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Bates, Alf
Hatton, Frank
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Rodgers, William (Teesside)


Bidwell, Sydney
Heffer, Eric S.
Rooker, J. W.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Henderson, Douglas
Roper, John


Booth, Albert
Horam, John
Rose, Paul B.


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow Pr.)
Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N.)
Rowlands, Ted


Buchanan, Richard
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Sedgemore, B.


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P.)
Jay, Rl Hon Douglas
Short, Rt Hon Edward (Newcastle C)


Campbell, Ian
John, Brynmor
Sillars, James


Cartwright, John
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Skinner, Dennis


Clemitson, I. M.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Small, William


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S.)
Jones, Dan (Butnley)
Smith, John (N. Lanarkshire)


Coleman, Donald
Kaufman, Gerald
Snape, Peter


Concannon, J. D.
Kelley, Richard
Spearing, Nigel


Conlan, Bernard
Kilroy-Silk, Robwt
Stallard A. W.


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Kinnock, Neil
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Corbett, Robin
Lamond, James
Stewart, Rt Hn Michael (H'smith, F)


Cox, Thomas (Wands, Toot)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Stoddart, David


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow M.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stott, Roger


Cryer, Bob
Loyden, Eddie
Strang, Gavin


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh.)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Dalyell, Tarn
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Davidson, Arthur
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
McCartney, Hugh
Thompson, George


Deakins, Eric
MacCormick, lain
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McElhone, Frank
Tomlinson, John


Dempsey, James
Mackintosh, John P.
Urwin, T. W.


Doig, Peter
McNamara, Kevin
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V.)


Dormand, Jack
Madden, Max
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Magee, Bryan
Ward Michael


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mahon, Simon
Wellbeloved, James


Dunn, James A.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Welsh Andrew


Dunnett, Jack
Maynard, Miss Joan
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Meacher, Michael
White, James (Glasgow, P)


Edge, Geoffrey
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mendelson, John
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E.)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, William (Coventry S.E.)


English, Michael
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Murray, Ronald King
Woodall Alec


Femyhough, Rt Hon E.
Noble, Mike
Woof Robert


Flannery, Martin
Oakes, Gordon
Wrigglesworth Ian


Fletcher, Raymond (Iikeston)
O'Halloran, Michael
Young David (Bolton E. )


Ford, Ben T.
Orbach, Maurice



Forrester, John
Ovenden, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Park, George
Miss Betty Boothroyd and


George, Bruce
Parry, Robert
Mr. James Hamilton.


Gilbert, Dr John
Pavltt, Laurie

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

RIGHTS OF ENTRY

Mr. Corrie: I beg to move Amendment No. 102, in page 10, line 27, after 'time', insert:
'and upon reasonable notice being given to the owner and occupier'.
It seems only fair that an owner or occupier should be advised when people are going to trample over his land to stick up notices, put in marker pegs or drill survey bores. It may be that an area is in crop when the land has to be surveyed. Much ill feeling can be aroused when an occupier comes upon someone undertaking test bores in the middle of his hay field.
It may be that a survey must be done in an area in which there are dangerous animals and the surveyor may be at risk. It may seem a small point, but it is an important one which could smooth the way for better public relations. The amendment suggests that both owner and occupier—to cover both the tenant and the landlord—should be informed. I hope the Minister of State will see his way to accepting it.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Millan: I appreciate what the hon. Member is attempting to do here, but the clause as drafted is precedented in Section 265 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 and the amendment, however well intentioned, would add nothing to the clause. I am advised that the words which are already in the clause—the words "at any reasonable time"—precisely cover the point with which the hon. Gentleman is seeking to deal. His amendment would add nothing, and it might cast doubt on the earlier provisions in the 1972 Act and elsewhere.

Mr. Corrie: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

APPLICATION TO CROWN LAND

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 103, in page 11, line 22, after first 'declaration', insert
'or entry was taken, which ever is the earlier,'.
It is a technical and basically a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 16 to 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 4

LOANS AND GUARANTEES BY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FACILITATING RELEVANT OPERATIONS

(1)The Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, make loans to any person for the purposes of enabling him or assisting him to make arrangements for the execution of relevant operations.
(2) The Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, guarantee the pay ment by any person of any sum payable by that person in respect of principal or interest under arrangements (whether by way of loan or otherwise) entered into by that person for the purpose of the execution of relevant operations.
(3)Any loan made under this section, and any sums issued in fulfilment of a guarantee given under this section, shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament, and shall be made or issued on such terms as to recovery by the Secretary of State of principal and in terest and otherwise as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury deter mine.— [Mr. John Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I think that it is self-explanatory. Perhaps hon. Members will be reassured to know that the additional powers it confers will not add to the expenditure incurred in the operation of the Bill. They add desirable flexibility to the methods by which the Government may secure rapid development of platform fabrication sites and other works under the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

DURATION, EXPIRY AND REVIVAL OF ACT

(1) This Act shall remain in force until the expiry of the period of five years beginning with the passing of this Act and shall then expire unless continued in force by an order under this section.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order pro vide that all or any of the provisions of this Act shall continue in force for a period not exceeding one year from the coming into operation of the order.
(3) A statutory instrument continuing an order made under this section shall be laid in draft in each House of Parliament and not take effect until such draft shall have been ap proved, by resolution of each House of Parlia ment.— [Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Chairman: With this new clause we may discuss new Clause 2—" Duration of Act".

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The purpose of new Clause 1, and of new Clause 2, in a slightly modified form, is to put a limit on the period over which the Bill will have effect.
The Bill, which is required for a special purpose, confers extensive powers on the Secretary of State for purposes that will not necessarily continue. Therefore, a limitation should be written into it.
We have done this in two ways. First, we have set the life of the measure at five years. That is an arbitrary figure. It may be argued that the period of exploration and exploitation could last longer, but the figure is more or less in line with the number of years the Government have forecast over which new platforms are necessary. However, I am prepared to reconsider the matter on Report if a different period is suggested.
Our second point, covered in more detail in new Clause 2, is that it may be necessary that certain powers be continued at the end of five years. For example, while it may not be necessary to go on acquiring sites to build production platforms, it may be necessary to retain the power for reinstatement. But it is right that the Government, whichever party is in power, should have to obtain an extension for one year at a time. I am open to argument that one year might not be enough.
Although I am open to persuasion on the periods involved, I am much more enthusiastic about the principle of imposing a limitation. There is a precedent for the new clause in Section 2 of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947, which included temporary powers for speedy acquisition of land in urgent cases. The parallel is not exact, but the Bill is urgent because of the national need to get the oil ashore as quickly as possible. In that section the Government of the day set a limit of five years.
I feel strongly about the matter, because the provisions proposed by Gordon Campbell, as Secretary of State, nearly a year ago were for special circumstances, and we saw them as being for a limited period.
I hope that the Government will see the Bill in the same way, and accept the spirit, if not the letter, of the clause. It is reasonable, and it has a precedent.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I support the provision contained in new Clause I but prefer to concentrate on new Clause 2 which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends. New Clause I suggests that the baby should be thrown out with the bath water. There are certain good things in the measure. Certain consequences flow from the first five years or so of its operation.
The difference which we have with those who support new Clause I is that we take exception to the expedited acquisition procedure. It is that proposal which should be allowed to fall at the end of five years, unless there is some special reason for continuing it; otherwise, the remainder of this measure, much of which will relate to reinstatement of things of value to the community, should be allowed to continue.

[Mr. GEORGE THOMAS in the Chair]

Mr. Millan: I take full account of the arguments used by the hon. Members for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) but I could not recommend to the Committee that either of the new clauses should be accepted. It is true that there is a precedent in the 1947 Act for a limited period of compulsory acquisition. I am not sure that we want to draw too


close a parallel with what may have seemed to be right at the end of the Second World War. That is rather less relevant than the effect that a provision of this sort would have upon the Bill.
If I were disposed to accept either of the clauses, I would prefer new Clause 2, if only because it is more limited in its application. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns admitted that there are certain powers in the Bill which it would be undesirable that we should lose in any way—on a much longer time scale than envisaged. I refer to the powers of reinstatement among others.
We could not provide that the Act, taken as a whole should last for only five years. If we were to adopt new Clause 1 as a basis for changing the Bill, it would require such substantial amendment that it would become an entirely different clause. It is important that we do not cause uncertainty. It may be argued that if we limited the operation of this measure we would assuage people's fears about it. I think such fears are basically unfounded.
If we were to suggest that the provisions are required for only five years there would be a strong implication that we were looking on North Sea oil as being a short-term development for Scotland. That is not our understanding of the position, nor is that the Government's intention. What is more, that is not the hon. Gentleman's intention. It is part of the Government's policy to see that there is a long, continuing and sustained benefit to be obtained for Scotland from the exploitation of North Sea oil, particularly in the provision of onshore activities.
1.30 a.m.
If we were now to write into the Bill any provision, however limited, that suggested to people that we were concerned only with short-term developments, we should cause uncertainty and confusion among developers and among local authorities. It is significant that although the proposition of a limited life for the Bill has some considerable support in Scotland, that does not extend to the local authorities, because they would not wish to see a limited Bill. What is even more important is that we should create uncertainty and confusion among the Scottish people.
It is important to get over to people in Scotland that this is a long-term development, that the benefits are long term, that the Government's approach is long term, and that we want to see controlled development offshore and onshore. The Bill is part of that control, and therefore we should not impose an artificial life on it even though that life could be extended by a year at a time. It is unusual to impose that sort of restriction in a Bill, and I think it would be widely misunderstood if it were done here. Even the second new clause, which is much more restricted in its impact, would have such serious consequences and be so psychologically wrong that I could not recommend the Committee to accept these proposals.
If, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East believes, the necessity for expediting acquisition procedures, and so on, for production platforms, for acquiring sites and for other developments will run out after a certain number of years, that part of the Bill will fall into desuetude in any case, but I do not take the view that that will happen, and I could not support the proposals on the assumption that it would. For those reasons, I hope that neither of the new clauses will be accepted.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Without necessarily wishing to protract the discussion, may I ask the Minister whether he accepts that if the expedited acquisition procedure is sought by the Government to deal with an emergency situation, to deal with the lack of production platforms to get the oil out of the North Sea as quickly as possible, the object of the emergency will largely have been taken care of within five years if the Government's plans are agreed, and therefore that argument will fall?
I am arguing particularly for new Clause 2 because I agree that there is a need for the Bill to take care of all the consequences that it will have initiated.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I reject the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) because, as he said, once the period is up the whole reason for urgency should have been taken care of.
What worries me is that the Minister seems to be more concerned with the


cosmetics of what he is doing, and he does not want anybody to think that the Government are treating oil development as a short-term operation. That seems to be the hon. Gentleman's main argument. The Minister thinks that a false impression will be created if the duration of the Bill is limited. I think that people in Scotland are realistic enough about the oil prospects, and I do not consider that limiting the Bill will create the wrong impression. If we have not managed to deal with an urgent situation over the next five or seven years, or whatever is considered to be a suitable: period, the whole Bill will have failed, and therefore it will not have been worth while having it on the statute book. I urge the Minister to think again about this.
The Department of Energy has made known the number of platforms that are likely to be required, and the rate at which they will be required. If there are a certain number of sites—and at this hour of the morning I am not sure of the exact number being built each year—each site will produce more than one platform.
If we get the necessary number of platforms built up over the next five years, it is likely that the output from those production sites will be adequate for the required rate of development of the oil industry, particularly in the light of the statement by the Secretary of State for Energy that, once we reach a state of self-sufficiency and when the present licences expire, in relation to new licens-ings consideration will have to be given to the rate at which oil comes ashore.
It is the next five years that are absolutely vital. Given that we have the capacity to produce the platforms, it may be that the capacity we can create over the next five years will be adequate for the longer term. The emergency powers may not be anything like so necessary after, say, five years—or, perhaps, eight years. I am open to persuasion as to the number of years.
The practical arguments carry far greater weight than the Minister's argument about giving people in Scotland the wrong impression. If the powers will not be necessary after a certain time, it would be better to set a date for ending them. I am prepared to go along with new

Clause 2, because I agree that there are aspects of the Bill that one would want to continue for very much longer, possibly to an indefinable future date.

Mr. Millan: I have listened carefully to what has been said. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) basically admitted that his new clause is drawn too wide. As for new Clause 2, I still think that the basic argument I used is valid. It is very important not to give the impression in Scotland that we are dealing with a short-term situation.
The provisions of Clause 1 and the subsections which are provided for in new Clause 2 are not in any sense mandatory on the Secretary of State. It is simply a matter of his having the power to use the expedited acquisition procedure as a matter of urgency. It is not a particularly easy thing for him to do, because he would then have to justify his use of that procedure and he would have to do that by the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses of Parliament.
Therefore, there are safeguards in the Bill—that if the sense of urgency gradually dies down, first there will be no disposition on the part of this Secretary of State, or indeed of any other Secretary of State, to use a procedure which in those circumstances may be very unpopular and, secondly, if he attempted to do that he would have to pass the barrier of parliamentary approval, and that would be a safeguard against his behaving in an irresponsible way.
On balance, I believe that it would be a mistake at this stage to write into the Bill limitations which we may subsequently regret. For the reasons I have given, I prefer to leave the Bill as it stands. I have heard from local authorities about a number of matters, but this is not a matter which worries them, as far as I am aware. I have had no evidence that it worries them, and none has been presented tonight. This is a provision which seems to be generally accepted by local authorities.

Question put and negatived.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Thomas. Is it possible to take the new Clause 2 for a Division rather than new Clause 1, which seems to be generally disapproved of?

The Chairman: It is possible for the hon. Member to move new Clause 2 formally. We have had a discussion on it. If the hon. Member wishes to move it formally for the purposes of a Division he may do so.

New Clause 2

DURATION OF ACT

19.—(1) Subsection (4), (5) and (6) of section 1 of this Act shall remain in force until the expiry of the period of five years beginning with the passing of this Act and shall then expire unless continued in force by an order under this section.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order provide—
(a) that all or any of the provisions of these subsections which are for the time being in force (including any in force by virtue of an order under this section) shall continue

Question accordingly negatived.

in force for a period not exceeding one year from the coming into operation of the order;
(b) that all or any of the said provisions which are for the time being in force shall cease to be in force, and
(c) that all or any of the said provisions which are not for the time being in force shall come into force again and remain in force for a period not exceeding one year from the coming into operation of the order.
(3) On the expiration of any provision of this Act, section 38(2) of the Interpretation Act 1889 (effect of repeals) shall apply as if that provision of this Act was then repealed by another Act. — [Mr. Gordon Wilson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 101.

Division No. 31.]
AYES
[1.45 a.m.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Reid, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Henderson, Douglas
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Mr. Andrew Welsh and


MacCormick, lain
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E.)
Mr. George Thompson.




NOES


Archer, Peter
Gilbert, Dr John
Parry, Robert


Armstrong, Ernest
Golding, John
Pendry, Tom


Atkinson, Norman
Gourlay, Harry
Prescott, John


Bates, Alf
Grant, John (Islington C.)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bean, Robert E.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamling, William
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hardy, Peter
Rooker, J. W.


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow Pr.)
Harper, Joseph
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)


Buchan, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Rowlands, Ted


Buchanan, Richard
Horam, John
Sedgemore, B.


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N.)
Short, Rt Hon Edward (Newcastle C)


Clemitson, I. M.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Sillars, James


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S.)
John, Brynmor
Skinner, Dennis


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Small, William


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Smith, John (N. Lanarkshire)


Cox, Thomas (Wands, Toot)
Kaufman, Gerald
Snape, Peter


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow M.)
Kelley, Richard
Spearing, Nigel


Cryer, Bob
Kinnock, Neil
Stallard, A. W.


Dalyeil, Tam
Loyden, Eddie
Stoddart, David


Davidson, Arthur
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Strang, Gavin


Deakins, Eric
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Doig, Peter
McCartney, Hugh
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Dormand, Jack
McElhone, Frank
Urwin, T. W.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mackintosh, John P.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V.)


Dunn, James A.
Madden, Max
White, James (Glasgow, P)


Edge, Geoffrey
Magee, Bryan
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mahon, Simon
Wilson, William (Coventry S.E.)


English, Michael
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mendelson, John
Woodall, Alec


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Millan, Bruce
Woof, Robert


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Ford, Ben T.
Murray, Ronald King
Young, David (Bolton E.)


Forrester, John
O'Halloran, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Ovenden, John
Miss Betty Boothroyd and


George, Bruce
Park, George
Mr. Laurie Pavitt.

Schedule 1

MAKING AND REVOCATION OF EXPEDITED ACQUISITION ORDERS

Mr. Corrie: I beg to move Amendment No. 108 in page 14, line 7, after ' order', insert
'and of any land adjacent to land so specified'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 109, in page 14, line 7, after 'order', insert
and of land contiguous to such specified land'.
No. 110 in page 14, line 7, leave out 'and ' and insert
(b) 'serve on each local authority in whose area the land lies; and '.
No. 111, in page 14, line 8, after 'publish' insert
'in two successive weeks '.
No. 145, in page 14, line 8, after 'locality', insert
'and any of the local newspapers '.

Mr. Corrie: It may be that this point is covered in previous planning. If so, no doubt the Minister will tell me.
The proposers of this amendment feel that it is only right that the owners of land adjacent to land specified in the order should be advised of what is happening on their boundaries. It is quite possible that neighbouring land would have to be crossed or be affected by development on its boundaries or by pollution from that development. It may be that the owner of neighbouring land has rights of way across the area scheduled for development and would naturally have a serious interest in future access.
In many of these Highland areas there are small crofts with common grazings. If a developed area came between a crofting village and its common grazing, it would be only fair that the people concerned should be notified personally.
I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept the amendment.

Mr. John Smith: I thought that hon. Members who had put their names to Amendment No. 110 would take the opportunity of speaking to it, but they do not appear to want to do so.
Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 require that notice should be given to owners of adjacent or contiguous land. I understand the point behind the amendments. The difficulty is that the process of identifying all interests in adjacent or contiguous land could add considerably to the administrative work involved in the preparation of orders. We have permission to publish them in newspapers. If Amendment No. 1ll is moved, I intend to accept it because it will give even wider spread to the notice given.
I believe that that is the best that can be done. I once moved a similar amendment to a previous Bill in a Scottish Standing Committee. I had to accept the explanation that was then given, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do the same now.

Mr. Corrie: I am prepared to accept the Minister's explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 1ll, in page 14, line 8, after 'publish', insert 'in two successive weeks'.—[Mr. Corrie.]

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 112, in page 14, line 25, leave out '14' and insert '21'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 113, in page 14, line 25, leave out '14' and insert '28'.

Mr. Millan: We are dealing with Schedule 1 and the length of notice required for making representations on a proposed expedited acquisition order.
There was widespread feeling on Second Reading that 14 days' notice was not sufficient. We have replaced that by a period of 21 days in this amendment. The precedent for 21 days as the minimum period of notice under the compulsory purchase procedure is taken from the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947.
Amendment No. 113 proposes that 28 days should be the minimum. There seems no particular reason why there should be a longer period in this instance than under the normal CPO procedure. There is, in fact, a case for making the period shorter. However, in view of the representations that have been made, we


have standardised the period at 21 days. I hope that that will be felt by the Committee to be an acceptable provision.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: We appreciate the points that the Minister has made. In tabling the amendment we believed that 28 days, in all the circumstances, would be fair, as only representations can be made here, and particularly as the Bill is hardly a sharp instrument for planning procedures. But we accept the points which the Minister has made.

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: The next amendment is No. 114, in page 14, line 29, leave out 'but' and insert 'and'. With this we are to take the following amendments:
No. 115, in page 14, line 29, leave out 'not'.
No. 116, in page 14, line 32, after ' representations "insert
'and the recommendations of any person appointed by him for the purposes of hearing such representations'.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: It would be wasting the time of the Committee to proceed further with these amendments, unless there is an indication from the Government Front Bench that the Government would be prepared to accept the suggestions made in each of them. Otherwise, I would seek the leave of the Committee not to proceed with them.

The Chairman: Amendments not moved.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

MAKING AND REVOCATION OF SEA DESIGNATION ORDERS

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move Amendment No. 120, in page 17, line 42, after 'shall', insert:
'(a) serve on such local authorities as appear to him to be concerned; and
(b)'

The Chairman: With this we are to take the following amendments:
No. 121, in page 17, line 42, after 'publish', insert:
'in two successive weeks in one or more local newspapers circulating in the localities near to the designated area and,'.

No. 122, in page 17, line 42, after 'such', insert 'other'.

Mr. Wilson: I move the amendment formally and leave it to the Minister to make representations. The point in the amendments, especially in Amendment No. 120, is very simple. It is a question whether the Minister thinks it would be worth while to adopt it.

Mr. John Smith: We do not think that it would be advisable to accept Amendment No. 120. The people most concerned are those who have rights in the land rather than local authorities. In the context of a planning consideration, the local authorities would inevitably know what was happening. But we are disposed to accept Amendments Nos. 121 and 122, which will be moved by other hon. Members.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I thank the Minister. These amendments were tabled in a spirit of trying to make sure that as many people as possible who will be affected should know. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting them.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: On the strength of the amendments which are to be made, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 121, in page 17, line 42, after 'publish', insert:
'in two successive weeks in one or more local newspapers circulating in the localities near to the designated area and,'.

No. 122, in page 17, line 42, after 'such', insert 'other'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 125, in page 18, line 1, leave out ' representations' and insert 'objections'.

The Chairman: With this we are to take the following amendments:
No. 128, in page 18, line 6, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert:
'If any objection made is not withdrawn the Secretary of State shall, before confirming the order, either cause a public local inquiry to be held or afford to any person by whom any objection has been made and not withdrawn an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary


of State for the purpose, and after considering the objection and the report of that person who held the inquiry or the person appointed as aforesaid, may confirm the order either with or without modifications'.
No. 129, in page 18, line 8, after ' representations', insert:
'and shall if either those making representations or the local authority or authorities so desire, offer to each of them an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose'.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The purpose of the amendments is relatively straightforward and does not require a great deal of explanation. What we are seeking is this: instead of simply giving people who are concerned the opportunity to make representations regarding a proposed sea designation order, we intend by the amendments to give them a formal right to object to what may be proposed and then, following those objections, to enable them to go through the full procedures whereby the Secretary of State can cause a local inquiry to be held or appoint someone to hear the objections in person and thereafter report to the Secretary of State so that he may come to a decision.
The reason why we have tabled the amendments is that my hon. Friends and I feel that to some extent the importance of the creation of these designated sea areas in relation to people's livelihoods could be overlooked. If this were an order affecting people's livelihoods on land—because in that case it would be affecting people's property—obviously we would not countenance proceeding in any other way than by giving people the full opportunity to make objections and for them to be heard at an inquiry or otherwise.
Clearly, the situation is not entirely the same in relation to the sea, because private individuals do not own the sea. But the effect on people's livelihood could be just as great. The fisherman derives his income and livelihood from the sea in the same way that the farmer derives his livelihood from the soil, although in one sense the fisherman does not occupy the sea in the way as the farmer occupies the land. This is an important matter as regards people's occupations and livelihoods.
The issues here are as important to the fisherman as if he worked on the land.

I sought in these circumstances to give to the people whose rights may be interfered with the same opportunities as would be considered appropriate had the land been concerned.
It is in that spirit that I move the amendment. I hope that the Government will accept it. I believe that it will be generally welcomed by those who use the sea to obtain their livelihood. I hope for an encouraging reply from the Minister.

Mr. Millan: I appreciate the reason for this amendment but I regret that I cannot recommend that the Committee accept it. There is a continuing misconception about sea designation orders and their purpose. They are not being introduced for the purpose of facilitating the offshore contractors' operations, which will continue without the sea designation orders. The purpose of the orders is to bring the operations under control. Even if a section feels that its fishing or other interests will be prejudiced by a sea designation order, it will not serve that interest well if there is delay, in particular that which would be caused by a public inquiry, because while the inquiry is proceeding damage will continue to be done. That is where one is in a situation different from that to which the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) drew attention.
I have said that we want to consult the local authorities. That has been written into the Bill. There are provisions relating to orders, regulations and licences which take account specifically of different interests.
I have looked into the question and I have said that I will consider the question of compensation. I shall consider, too, the question of consultation with fishing interests. The approach which we should adopt is to write in safeguards before the order is made. Once the order has been made and we have allowed time for representations on it, I do not think we should then go through the public inquiry procedure. That would be damaging to the people whom the hon. Gentleman wishes to protect.
I am not unsympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do, but I do not think that this is the way to do


it. I hope, in the light of that explanation that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I accept the Minister's assurance, and also what he said about the concept behind this measure. If there is no specific designation, many activities will be carried on at sea without the possibility of any control being exercised. There are certain benefits to be gained from the making of sea designation orders. I accept that point and do not argue about it.
However, equally, I ask the Minister to accept the other argument. While there are benefits there are also disciplines. The disciplines arise in regard to the regulations. Once the sea designation has been made, we have the opportunity to make regulations. It is conceivable that while some of those regulations could be beneficial, others could be of a restrictive nature. There are two sides to this coin.
At this late hour, I shall not press the amendment. I rest on the Minister's assurance about consultation with the fishing interests. It is for such consultation that we have pressed in all these amendments. The Minister says that he will see whether it is possible to write into the Bill a provision to ensure that fishing interests are more protected than they are at the moment.
In the circumstances, and in view of the Minister's undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 126, in page 18, line 4, leave out '14' and insert '21'.

The Chairman: With this amendment, we are to discuss No. 127, in page 18, line 4, leave out '14' and insert '28'.

Mr. Millan: This is a parallel amendment to the one which I moved to Schedule 1, to increase the period during which representations may be made about an order.
This is the last amendment. As you, Mr. Thomas, were in the Chair when we began, you will know that we have got through a considerable amount of work, and you will be even more relieved that we are not going on to deal with the remaining stages.
I appreciate very much the way in which the different Opposition parties have approached the Bill. We have done a remarkable amount of work. We have wasted no time. I am grateful for the way in which hon. Members generally, including my hon. Friends, have approached the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, to be considered this day, and to be printed [Bill 48].

SHERIFFDOMS (REORGANISATION)

2.8 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): I beg to move,
That the Sheriffdoms Reorganisation Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th November, be approved.
The order reorganises Scotland into six new sheriffdoms in place of the existing 12 sheriffdoms. The reorganisation is a consequence of the reform of local government brought about by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, and the new sheriffdoms and the timing of their creation have been designed to keep in step with the reform of local government.
The opportunity is also being taken to reduce the number of sheriffdoms from 12 to six, and to replace the existing two whole-time and 10 part-time sheriffs principal by six whole-time sheriffs principal. The House will recall that, in the course of the consideration of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Bill in 1971, there was considerable discussion on the merits of whole-time as opposed to part-time sheriffs principal. The employment of part-time sheriffs principal was continued at that time, but the then Lord Advocate stated that if experience showed that the only way in which the powers and responsibilities imposed on sheriffs principal could be properly exercised was to have full-time appointments, the Government would not hesitate to use the powers in the Bill to bring this situation about.
We have now had a period of experience of part-time sheriffs principal working under the more rigorous requirements placed upon them by the 1971 Act, and my right hon. Friend and my right


hon. and learned Friend are both satisfied that part-time sheriffs principal, visiting their sheriffdoms only periodically, cannot undertake the level of local administration that is now required to provide the modern and efficient service which the Grant Report said was so badly needed. My right hon. Friend, in consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend, has accordingly decided that it is now time to go over wholly to full-time sheriffs principal who will be resident in their sheriffdoms, and the creation of six new sheriffdoms is the consequence of this decision.
The new sheriffdoms are created by article 2 of the order. Three of the new sheriffdoms comprise entire local authority regions or island areas. These are the Grampian, Highland and Islands Sheriffdom, the Tayside, Central and Fife Sheriffdom, and the Lothian and Borders Sheriffdom. There are obvious advantages in making use of regional boundaries wherever it is practical to do so, as this avoids overlapping interests by local authority services also concerned with the courts, such as the police and social work services.
With regard to the remainder of Scotland, which comprises Strathclyde and Dumfries and Galloway, it is impractical not to breach regional boundaries. The population of Strathclyde is just under 3 million. To make Strathclyde a sheriffdom on its own would be to create an impossible work load for a sheriff principal, as the judicial duties alone would be beyond the capacity of a single individual. To isolate Glasgow alone, as recommended by the Grant Committee, would still have left a population of approximately 1·7 million for the remainder of Strathclyde and Dumfries and Galloway, and my right hon. Friend takes the view that the administration of justice would best be served by having three further sheriffdoms.
Glasgow has been associated with Strathkelvin for purely practical reasons; there is no sheriff court within the Strathkelvin district, and transport links point to the Strathkelvin business being dealt with in Glasgow rather than at any other court. North Strathclyde comprises the area to the north and west of Glasgow, down to and including Kilmarnock and

Loudoun, and the remainder of Strathclyde to the east and south of Glasgow is combined with the region of Dumfries and Galloway to form a sheriffdom. In this way, Strathclyde is the only local authority region that does not fall wholly within a sheriffdom, and we understand that the division of Strathclyde which has been proposed, and which recognises local authority district boundaries, will not cause difficulty.
In devising these six sheriffdoms, care has been taken to create sheriffdoms that will be manageable for sheriffs principal and will produce a reasonable balance between judicial and administrative responsibilities. The number is one more than suggested in the Grant Report, but it has proved possible to create sheriffdoms that are broadly equivalent in certain respects. Each sheriffdom, with the exception of Glasgow and Strathkelvin, will require about 10 sheriffs to operate the courts within its boundary. Glasgow and Strathkelvin will require about 15 sheriffs, all serving in the Glasgow court. Other criteria such as the probable number of court districts and the amount of travelling that will be involved have also been taken into account, but, as I have said, our main consideration has been to produce sheriffdoms which can be effectively and efficiently administered by a sheriff principal, and this we believe we have done.
To tie in with the local authority reorganisation, it is highly desirable that sheriff courts should be ready to operate efficiently in relation to new sheriff court districts on 16th May 1975. A further order will be necessary before that time to define the new sheriff court districts, but before the order is drafted there must be local consultation with all the interested bodies. My right hon. Friend takes the view that these consultations can best be undertaken by the new sheriffs principal. They will also have responsibility for the consequential detailed arrangements for the disposal of court business within the new districts. To allow time for this the new whole-time sheriffs principal will need to be in post from 1st January 1975, and it is for this reason that the order defines the new sheriffdoms in relation to existing counties and sheriff court districts for the period from 1st January to 16th May 1975 in the second column of Schedule 1.
From 16th May 1975 the new sheriffdoms are defined in relation to the new local authority regions, islands authorities and districts in the third column of the schedule. The sheriffdom boundaries are not identical in each case, but the variations are relatively minor. As sheriffdoms created at 1st January 1975 comprise existing sheriff court districts, there will be no dislocation of business on that date so far as concerns the working of individual courts. Thus, though it is necessary to create the new sheriffdoms in this way to provide for the appointment of new whole-time sheriffs principal from 1st January 1975, there will be only one change in sheriff court districts. That change will take place on 16th May 1975 coincident with the definition of new sheriffdoms in terms of the new local authority areas.
Article 3 of the order provides that existing sheriffs principal shall cease to hold office from 1st January 1975. This provision is all-embracing and includes the existing whole-time sheriffs principal of Lanark and Lothians and Peebles. I can tell the House, however, that the sheriff principal of Lanark has intimated his intention of retiring from office on 31st December 1974. It is perhaps appropriate for me at this stage to pay tribute to Sir Alan Walker and to acknowledge the contribution which he has made to the administration of justice in his sheriffdom.
It is also the intention to recommend to Her Majesty that the sheriff principal of Lothians and Peebles should be appointed to the new sheriffdom of Lothian and Borders. Effectively, therefore, the provision applies only to the part-time sheriffs principal. There are 10 such posts, but one is at present filled on an interim basis, so that in practice nine individuals are affected, Under the powers in Section 2(3) of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 the Secretary of State may, with the concurrence of Ministers for the Civil Service, pay such amount by way of compensation for loss of office as is reasonable in all the circumstances. That will be done for those who do not want, or are unsuccessful in obtaining appointment as whole-time sheriffs principal.
The remaining provisions in the order are either consequential or transitional, Article 3(2) continues the existing

appointments of sheriffs and honorary sheriffs in the new sheriffdoms and avoids the need to issue fresh commissions in every case. Article 3(3), which deals with commissariats, provides for the continuation of commissary business within the new sheriffdoms. Statutory and other references to a sheriff principal or sheriff of an existing sheriffdom are to be construed as references to the sheriff principal or sheriff of the appropriate new sheriffdom by virtue of Article 3(4). Article 3(5) continues the appointments of sheriff officers and the like until such time as fresh appointments can be issued by the new sheriffs principal. Article 4 makes provision for the continuation in the same courts of any proceedings pending on 1st January 1975 or any subsequent proceedings arising out of concluded cases. Article 5 allows criminal proceedings to be taken for an offence committed before 16th May 1975 in either the appropriate old or new sheriff court.
I commend the order to the House.

2.20 a.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I thank the Minister for so clearly explaining the order. I congratulate him on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box as a Scottish Office Minister. He has a reputation for meticulous preparation of all his work, and I know that we shall look forward to debating many subjects with him. Perhaps unfortunately, his first debate is at this hour of the morning. It deals with such an important subject for Scottish law, but such are the facts of life and we must accept the hour.
I accept the Minister's general historical survey of the transfers on 1st January to the new sheriffdoms running in harness and the subsequent more marginal change on 16th May. This whole subject was most fully debated during the Second Reading and Committee stage of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Bill in 1971. That became a wise Act in connection with which the present Lord Advocate played a constructive part in Committee. We welcome his presence here tonight.
It is interesting to read the contributions in Committee in 1971 by the present Lord Advocate and by other hon. Members who are in the Government now—the hon. Members for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael) and Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith)—and of


the then Lord Advocate, now Lord Wylie. It is interesting to consider the order in relation to the detailed work of the Grant Committee, about which I have certain questions. I am sure that the Minister tonight must feel that it would have been much better had the minority report of the Grant Committee been accepted so that the Lord Advocate and not the Minister would be replying now, but that is the way things went in 1971.
I join the Minister in paying warm tribute to the work of the sheriffs principal in Scotland over many years, and to the way they have bridged the gap between existing practice at the bar and the judicial and administrative work of the Court of Session. It is the loss of that bridge which is causing heart-searching among hon. Members tonight. That is a key question, and arguments have flowed in both directions as to which way that question should be answered.
Can an able and senior advocate at the Bar in the High Court, or perhaps taking public inquiries or planning inquires, look after the difficult administration work in a sheriffdom? Is the breadth of experience of advocates who have been involved in such a broad spectrum of jurisdiction and legislation to be lost to Parliament House? What steps has the Minister in mind to keep the new sheriffdoms in touch with Edinburgh in the broadest sense?
It is an office of great antiquity which has maintained an exceptionally high standard of law. Sheriffs principal have given wise guidance to juries and advice to the local legal profession. We are sorry to see them go. I hope and expect that there will be fair treatment of all concerned. While we have the opportunity, we want to add a tribute to the sheriff-clerks and their staffs, who have worked so ably with their sheriffs principal.
The nub of the order is whether we should continue with the part-time sheriff principal or change to the full time. Lord Hughes said in another place on 27th November, as reported at column 442 of the House of Lords OFFICIAL REPORT, that the previous Lord Advocate had left his options open. That is confirmed by a reading of the proceedings of the Grand Committee and the Standing Committees.

The conclusive evidence has made the Secretary of State decide on full-time appointments. We should like to hear that evidence, because Lord Hughes did not say how the decision had been made
Perhaps some of the present sheriffs principal will remain as whole-time sheriff principal. We have only three weeks to go. Presumably the Secretary of State has given some thought to the appointments. Will they be selected from advocates now practising at the Bar or sheriffs principal or sheriffs presently in post? Is the Secretary of State even contemplating the appointment of solicitors, under Section 5(1) of the Act?
I ask because I am anxious to know how the Minister sees the sheriff principal carrying out his duties. The sheriff principal is principally an appellate judge, with the addition of administrative and organisational duties. Will he have time to do jury work? Will he be expected to spend a great deal of his time touring the vast sheriffdoms throughout the week and at the same time be able to take cases? If so, he will be in a worse position for travelling than the average Member of Parliament, and perhaps have to work just as long hours.
I am also interested in what the position will be at General Elections. Where is the sheriff principal likely to be the returning officer? He obviously cannot turn up at every constituency, as so often happens now. I know that it is always done in Glasgow, where I believe the counts take place in one building. But it is not so good if the sheriff principal is supposed to be returning officer in South Ayrshire and Dumfries on the same night. I would be disappointed if I did not have the sheriff principal to see that I was properly returned to the House of Commons. The sheriff principal has always acted most expeditiously in carrying out the count, assisted by the sheriff's Clerk.
Can the Minister assure me that the new sheriffs principal will have the chance of going on to the Bench in due course? We do not want to feel that this important post has an air of finality about it. We want to feel that there is the possibility of movement to the Bench so that these people can continue their good work within the legal profession. This was brought out in the Grant Committee's


Report. We know that the Scottish Bar is small. I see that in another place it was said that the Scottish Bar is smaller than the Liverpool Bar. But, of course, the quality is quite exceptionally different.
We do not want to see the talent of the Scottish Bar wasted or left untapped. I am sure that the Minister will be able to tell us the number of extra sheriffs that will require to be appointed to serve under the new sheriffs principal. I am not sure how many there are in post at present. How many is it expected there will be in post at the end of May?
There is one interesting point I wish to raise. It may be a metaphorical one, but in the speceh of Lord Hughes and in that by the Minister tonight, mention was made of the fact that the new full-time sheriffs principal would be resident in their sheriffdoms. I am sure that the Minister does not mean resident in the domestic sense. I presume it is in the sense that the sheriff principal would be resident permanently in the office he uses. It is not in the Act as far as I am aware that he would be resident in his sheriffdom. The possibility is mentioned in Section 17. I would be interested to have the Minister's comment because it is important when we look to the size of some of the sheriffdoms.
There will be the sheriffdoms within the Strathclyde region, where distances are small, but if we take the Highlands and Islands, which is the most enormous sheriffdom, would it be expected that the sheriff principal should live in Aberdeen, Inverness or Stornaway? There is nothing about that in the Act. I expect that the sheriff principal would be expected to reside near to the sheriff court which he chooses as his headquarters.
I come to the new sheriffdoms. Lord Grant reported on five sheriffdoms and now the Government have come forward with six. I feel that they are on the large side. I would like them to be tied much closer to the new regions we have accepted in Scotland. I would have advocated something of the order of 10 sheriffdoms—Grampian, Highlands and Islands, Tay, Central, Fife, Lothian and Border together, Dumfries and Galloway alone, with three sheriffs principal for Strathclyde. I would let that region sort out how the three sheriffdoms should be divided. I should have thought that 10 sheriffdoms would have provided a fairer

geographical distribution and a better career prospect for all concerned. I ask these questions because the Government were somewhat inconsistent during the passage of the legislation, and I should be interested to know why they have settled for six sheriffdoms rather than the five they advocated then.
Now I come to the Grant Report, and particularly to the Note of Dissent by Mr. David Brand—now Lord Brand—Sir Arthur Duncan, one of the wisest administrators in the South-West of Scotland, and Sheriff Watt, all men of great standing. They based their dissent on failures past and present in St. Andrew's House. There was the failure in 1967 particularly to keep the Sheriff Court Rules up to date. There had been no regular meetings of the rules committee, and there was a general failure in organisational and court procedures as directed from St. Andrew's House. The Secretary of State for Scotland then, as now, not surprisingly, was the right hon. and immortal Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) himself.
Can the Minister tell me tonight his views on whether this reorganisation of the sheriffdoms will, first, step up the efficiency of the courts, which we all want to see, and, secondly, improve the contact and co-ordination that should be expected between the Secretary of State and the law? I know that Lord Wylie made substantial progress towards this end. Can the Minister say what his plans are for the future, and how the order will be beneficial to justice in Scotland? If little preparatory work has been done this order will be a waste of time, but I am sure that it has been prepared most carefully.
If the hon. Gentleman gives us helpful replies to our many questions we shall help him to expedite the approval of the order, particularly as the Conservative Party was instrumental in paving the way for it through the 1971 Act. We shall want to know the reasons for the changes in direction and the changes in boundaries before we can pass the order, but I am sure that after he has heard other speakers the Minister will be able to answer the debate fully to our satisfaction.

2.38 a.m.

Mr. James Sillars: I thought this would be an exciting debate.


When I first got the order I thought that it was the usual dull kind of order that we get, but when I looked at Article 3(3) on page 2 the word "commissariot" hit me between the eyes. I said to myself "Hullo. Harry"—Harry being the culloquial name for my lion. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—"has done it this time." I thought that Conservative Members would be on to that word like a shot, imagining that it had come from a meeting of the Tribune Group instructing the Government to take another leftward turn to the Communist State towards which we are always being accused of urging the Government.
I got hold of the Little Oxford dictionary and found that the word commissariat has no unusual political connotation but is defined as a food and store department of the Army. All that I can read into that paragraph is that somewhere, somehow, some of our sheriffs are heads of food departments. I wonder whether my hon. Friend can enlighten us on the exact meaning of Article 3(3). I am sure that Tory Members share my disappointment that there is no deep political meaning behind this word. The thought that we might have been socialising even for a moment with a part of the judiciary in Scotland which could be so described made my heart beat even faster.
I want to raise also the question of the allocation of some parts of Scottish local government districts into North Strathclyde. I do so rather diffidently because I shall mention the word "Cunningham". That place lies in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie). I never venture into my hon. Friend's territory if I can possibly avoid it, although I allow him to enter mine as frequently as he likes. My hon. Friend is at present abroad on a parliamentary delegation and I am sure that he will not mind my raising a question which has been raised with me by the Ayr Faculty of Solicitors. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) will want to say a few words on this subject.
The Ayr Faculty of Solicitors has written to the hon. Member and myself. I sent a letter to the Under-Secretary drawing attention to the faculty's comments in respect of some parts of the district of Cunningham which are being

allocated to Kilmarnock court, whereas they go at present to Ayrshire court. I think I have that right.
I repeat that I am rather diffident about raising this matter, because it does not affect constituents of mine. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire will be quite happy with the order defining that all the people inside Cunningham should go into the North Strathclyde area for this purpose, but, having had the Ayr Faculty of Solicitors write to me, I thought it was only right to raise the matter on the Floor of the House.

2.42 a.m.

Mr. George Younger: I wish to take up the point which was raised by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars). I am not happy about the way the lines for the future division of areas are drawn in the order.
If I understand the order aright, its effect as regards my part of Ayrshire is to transfer Irvine and Kilwinning from the jurisdiction of Ayr Sheriff Court to the jurisdiction of Kilmarnock Sheriff Court.
The division of Ayrshire into sheriff courts is, and has been, a fairly arbitrary one, but as a result of this long-standing division facilities have grown up as regards the location of solicitors and the form of practice they have to match. They are divisions of use and wont in that part of the country.
Perhaps the Minister will confirm that Ayrshire is the only county as to which the order proposes to remove part of one court district into another. If that is so, I claim that we are to some extent a special case, and I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at my plea.
The Minister said that the real reason for the two dates in the order—1st January and 16th May—was to enable consultations to take place under the aegis of the new sheriffs between those two dates. It is vital that we be given an assurance that the fact that the order is before us tonight does not preclude those consultations from being fruitful. In other words, if the order is approved tonight, I hope that the consultations which will be held between 1st January and May will lead, if sufficiently strong representations are made and if the Minister is convinced of the rightness of


the representations, to some alterations in the boundaries. The order being what it is, this seems to be very difficult to achieve. If so, I must point out that in the event I do not think that "consultation" is consultation within the meaning of the word.
I draw the attention of the House to the words used by the previous Lord Advocate, Lord Wylie—Mr. Wylie, as he was there—in Standing Committee discussing this matter. I refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT of the First Scottish Standing Committee on 20th April 1971, when Lord Wylie said:
In the exercise of his powers under Clause 3 the Secretary of State would be bound to carry out the most far-reaching and wideranging consultations. I take this opportunity of making a positive commitment. Where it may be contemplated that, for administrative reasons, it is necessary to close a sheriff court —the closure of a court is the high water mark of the problem—before any such proposal were implemented under Clause 3, the Secretary of State would consult all those bodies and persons likely to be affected. He would be bound to consult the sheriff principal, the sheriff and the sheriff's clerk. Sometimes when one talks about consulting the sheriff it is important to remember that the sheriff's clerk is as important in this organisational sphere as the sheriff himself. Not only is the Secretary of State bound to consult those persons and the procurator fiscal, and, no doubt, local faculties, but in particular he would be bound to consult the local authorities. I make the firm commitment that, before exercising his powers under Clause 3, the Secretary of State will consult the local authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee, 20th April 1971, c. 52–3.]
The present Lord Advocate intervened to ask about consultations with Members of Parliament. I shall not weary the House by reading that, but I hope the House will take it that Lord Wylie went on to make it clear that he would regard it as unthinkable—I think he used that word—that the local Member of Parliament would not be included in the consultations, through the fact that the local authority would have been informed.
It seems to me that that makes it clear that the intention at the time when the Standing Committee agreed to this provision was that real and meaningful consultations would take place, in such a way that those being consulted could influence the final result.
I therefore ask the Minister to confirm to me that by some means, which are not plain to me at the moment, consultations

will take place after January. I am not saying that those consultations should necessarily result in change, but if they are sufficiently effective they could result in some change. That is a very important principle. We cannot regard consultations as having taken place if that is not so.
Finally, I want to say a word about the reasons why I think there should be a careful rethinking of what is being done. Ayr Sheriff Court gets about 40 per cent. of its business from the Irvine and Kilwinning areas—areas which are proposed to be changed in this order. As a result, Ayr Sheriff Court is organised to deal with this business expeditiously and efficiently. There is an active Bar of approximately 20 solicitors practising daily in court, and it is generally agreed that the premises and accommodation are adequate for the public, the prisoners and the staff. I believe that the sheriff's clerk's office is about to expand into premises at present occupied by the procurator fiscal's office, and the fiscal himself is to move to large new premises recently acquired. This sort of expansion and the expenses attendant upon it seem odd when taken in conjunction with a move to restrict the busines of the court by potentially as much as 40 per cent.
I am on not nearly such good ground in commenting upon the facilities at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court, because I have no direct experience. According to my information, however, the facilities there are nothing like so good, even for the business the court does now. There is only one court room, and there is another small and rather inadequate room which is also used as a temporary court. A second court is in the course of construcstruction, but plans to build an entirely new court, which has been under discussion for some years, have been abandoned.
There is a chronic lack of space for the public, agents and accused persons, and the new extension of the work of the court will make these conditions even more difficult. The court organisation is so overburdened that delays—delays which have been described to me as "intolerable"—occur, with inconvenience to those involved. This may be caused by the fewer number of Kilmarnock solicitors who practise in court. I understand that 13 of them so practise, but


my information is second-hand and I have no personal experience of the situation. I hope that the Minister will check the facts carefully. There appears to be a prima facie case for saying that this extra burden will fall on an organisation which at present is struggling to carry on its business. This implies no criticism of those who are doing a very good job in Kilmarnock.

Mr. Sillars: In his calculations the hon. Gentleman appears to have missed out the people who travel from the urban area to Ayr and who may find it easier to travel to Kilmarnock.

Mr. Younger: I am coming to that point. The transport service to Ayr from Kilwinning and Irvine can be said to be superior to that from those towns to Kilmarnock. There is a direct half-hourly rail service between Kilwinning and Irvine and Ayr, a service which is fast and good when running on time, and there is a good road link, which shortly will be considerably improved by the construction of the bypass between the existing Prestwick bypass and Irvine. Work on that construction is well-advanced. I maintain that it is easier and faster for the public, and for the police in conveying prisoners, to travel the slightly longer distance to Ayr than to Kilmarnock.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): The hon. Gentleman mentioned the problems which would arise if alterations were made in the boundaries covered by sheriff courts. Will he apply his mind to the fact that the reference to the 1971 Act relates to Section 3 of the Act, which provides for alteration of the sheriff court districts. He will recall that that was exactly the matter which was covered by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in opening the debate. My hon. Friend said that it was at that stage that consultation of the kind adumbrated by the hon. Gentleman took place.

Mr. Younger: I think I took that point, but I wanted to be sure that the consultations were not too late. If a powerful case is presented to the Minister, I want to know whether it will be possible for a district to be altered. There is no reason why the sheriff court area

should coincide absolutely with the district boundaries. There is no direct connection between them, although undoubtedly it looks neater on the map. I hope that we shall have an assurance from the Minister on this point.

2.54 a.m.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I wish to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. He acquitted himself well.
With regard to the size of the sheriff court proposed in the order, my first reaction was that the area concerned, particularly the Grampians and the Highlands, is far too large. I confess that I have no knowledge of the work load which the new sheriffs principal will have to undertake in that kind of region. It may be that their duties will allow them to handle the work efficiently.
It is unfortunate that there should be a reduction in the opportunities for members of the Scottish Bar to go on the Bench. I have no personal interest in this matter. I have been an honorary sheriff since 1960. I am glad that the order states that honorary sheriffs will continue in that status.
The areas seem extraordinarily large, particularly since it is desirable that the sheriffs principal will appear in and take the various sheriffs courts in the sheriffdoms from time to time.
I welcome the suggestion that the sheriffs principal should reside in the sheriffdoms. This is essential. In some instances this provision has hardly been honoured in the past.
The Minister said that the sheriff courts should operate efficiently. I want to draw attention to my constituency. For 150 years we were represented on the ground by a Western sheriff. About 10 years ago we had to share a sheriff with Paisley, Stornoway and Lochmaddy courts, because the Stornoway sheriff has always covered the Lochmaddy court. Accordingly, the administration of justice suffered.
All that the Lord Advocate at that time could say in justification was that it was an economy measure. I thought that it was an extremely short-sighted attitude to attempt to save about £4,500 in that way.
The Lord Advocate who was appointed in 1970, now Lord Wylie, improved the position by sharing the sheriff between the Stornoway, the Loch-maddy and the Inverness courts. But there is still a great need in the area.
The Stornoway town council has pressed me strongly on this matter. I know from experience as a member of that council how deeply the want was felt for a resident sheriff. I know of one particular case that took nine to 11 months to come before the court. By that time the witnesses had scattered all over the world. The solicitors were brought from Inverness, the case was adjourned, and the solicitors had to be brought back a second time at great cost to the people concerned, and so on.
I know that the present Lord Advocate is keen that the administration of justice should be efficient and cheaply available to the public, but he should recognise the geographical and cultural differences of the Islands. After all, they have been recognised in local government terms now with the new Islands authority. I do not expect an answer tonight, but I think that this matter should be looked into. I press the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the plea made by the local authority that a local resident judge should again be brought to the Stornoway and Lochmaddy courts.

2.59 a.m.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I view the order with the greatest of suspicion. I must congratulate the Under-Secretary on his introduction of the order. I think that but for the intervention of the business of the House, he and I would have been enjoying dinner tonight with a mutual friend. I congratulate him on forgoing that.
One wants to look at the motive for the order. The Under-Secretary said that what we are interested in is efficiency. I am not convinced about that. What we are interested in is the administration of justice.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The efficient administration of justice.

Mr. Fairbairn: The efficient administration of justice. But the administration of justice. We are not interested in

administrative neatness. The order replaces a long tradition. That long tradition is that the most senior, distinguished and excellent members of the Scottish Bar were appointed to the office of sheriff principal. I except for the moment Edinburgh, Glasgow, Lanarkshire and the Lothians. But the purpose was that the most distinguished members of the Bar, who were in daily contact with the law, should be the sheriffs principal.
Now we are about to depart from that in entirety. I appreciate that the decision was made under the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act that this would be possible. But it was not necessary. It was sensible in the case of Edinburgh, the Lothians, Glasgow and Lanarkshire that the sheriffs principal there, who have manifestly larger duties, should be full-time sheriffs principal. No case has been made for the sudden change that all the other sheriffs principal should be abolished and replaced. What allegedly is the case for this change? It is certainly not a saving in money or an improvement in the standard of sheriffs.
Let us look at this important matter. I may be corrected, but I think that what will happen is this. A member of the Bar will say "Do I regard myself as good enough to go on practising so that I may make the Court of Session bench or even the House of Lords, or shall I opt out?" In the latter case, we shall not get the same level of sheriff principal. That is one matter of considerable concern.
The next matter, however, gives me much greater concern. The Under-Secretary said—I accept it and fear it—and it was said in another place, that the purpose of the order is to make for administrative efficiency. What the Government are looking for, therefore, is not for a member of the Bar to be a good lawyer and not for a court of civil appeal of the highest sort, which has done very well in providing cheap justice—and I mean cheap justice—as a court of appeal in civil matters, but for a man who will be an administrator.
Let us look at the absurdity of the first sheriffdom, that of Grampian, Highland and Islands. It is almost the size of Egypt. No one could effectively administer such an area. Have we for so


long been suffering under sheriffs principal who are ignoring their administrative duties, getting matters wrong or doing things badly? Not at all. What is the justification for the change? It is purely the justification of bureaucracy, which says "We are regionalising. We will regionalise the sheriffs and make it all fit." But it has never fitted. The sheriffs principal have never been restricted to one county, one local authority or one area. No one has ever complained that this upset the bureaucracy. But suddenly it all has to fit bureaucratically.
I believe that this will be bad for justice, bad for the Bar, bad for the law and, most of all, bad for the litigant. The fact that six sheriffdoms have been created does not mean that the sheriffs will reside there. The sheriffs may reside 200 or 300 miles away from their sheriffdoms. An administrator will be necessary. The administrator will need a large staff.
What is it predicted that the administrator will do? What are all the new administrative duties which will require a man, previously a full-time practising silk, to administer the capabilities of a court of appeal and, in criminal matters, a court of first instance on indictment? Suddenly we need administrators, who will need clerks, who will need offices. What will the expense be? What duties will these people perform? We are replacing justice with bureaucracy. That is what worries me about this order. It is not justified by the Minister on the basis that the system has broken down, or that the previous system was wrong. It is not justified, in the case of any other sheriff-dom, on the basis that one could be temporary while another must be full time. This is done purely as a bureaucratic measure and as an act of cleanliness.
I believe this measure goes against a long-standing tradition of the law of Scotland which has served the people of Scotland, both litigants and accused, extremely well. I regret to say that I can see no advantage in it, although I can see great expense. I have great reservations about the matter.
Can the Minister tell us what he anticipates will be the proportion of time that the Sheriff of Grampian, Highland

and Islands, which is no small district, will spend on administration and what the administration will be? How much time does he anticipate that the other sheriffs will spend on these matters?
The motive for any change in our system of judges, courts and judgments should be that the litigant or the accused will obtain a better deal. I can see nothing in this order which suggests that he will. All we will have is something which satisfies regionalised bureaucracy.

The Lord Advocate: Will the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) apply his mind to the fact that the Grant Committee reached the conclusion that full-time sheriffs principal were desirable precisely for the reasons he put forward, that is to improve the quality of justice in the sheriffdoms?

Mr. Fairbairn: Yes. The Grant Committee divided eight votes to six. It said that sheriffs should be established in sheriffdoms where desirable, and I agree. That committee did not say that it took the view that the only way to resolve the matter was to have sheriffs posted across the board overnight. There was no question of a sudden transformation in Scotland or that we should change from one system to another. The Grant Committee said, I believe rightly, that if there was a case for establishing a full-time sheriff in Fife or Inverness it should be done but that there was no need to introduce a bureaucratic system for its own sake.
I believe this measure to be ill-conceived, ill-thought-out and based on an ignorance of what the Grant Committee said, and of what the Sheriffs Court (Scotland) Act provided. If it is approved by this House, it will be to the great regret of litigants, who are the essential people involved.

3.10 a.m.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) for their good wishes to me on my first appearance at the Dispatch Box. I understand that all the best honeymoons take


place at 10 minutes past 3 o'clock in the morning. This is something of a honeymoon for me.
The hon. Member for Dumfries asked me to indicate the steps being taken to keep closer in touch with Edinburgh once the reorganisation of sheriffdoms comes into effect.
It is possible to over-estimate the links with the Faculty of Advocates and Edinburgh. The arguments are set out in the Grant Report and, briefly, it is our experience that those who have most to contribute tend to hold office for the shortest period. Probably the best example is the five changes in almost as many years in the hon. Gentleman's own area of Dumfries and Galloway.
The hon. Gentleman asked why it was that we did not retain part-time sheriffs principal. Since 1971 part-time sheriffs principal have been in post in 10 of the 12 sheriffdoms, but the looked for improvement in the day to day administration of the courts which the Grant Committee found so sadly lacking and which the 1971 Act was designed to improve has not been achieved. The view is now taken that effective local administration and control requires a whole-time sheriff principal resident in his sheriffdom, the more so at a time of change and reorganisation. I should also like to deal with the suggestion that the removal of the part-time sheriff principal destroys the link that exists between the acquisition of judicial experience in the sheriffdom and appointment to the Court of Session. I shall not weary the House with the arguments set out in the Grant Committee's report except to say that I endorse the majority view which was that those who have the most to contribute tend to be sheriffs principal for the shortest period. This is a view which I have expressed already.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about appointments. They will be made by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, and the intention is that the best men for the job will be appointed. By virtue of their experience, existing part-time sheriffs principal will be strong candidates for consideration, if they so wish, so that the existing part-time sheriffs principal are not ruled out as a possibility for appointment to the new sheriff principal posts.
Then the hon. Gentleman raised the question of the sheriff principal continuing as the returning officer at a General Election. I understand the vested interest put forward by the hon. Gentleman. The answer is "Yes," at least at the moment, because the Representation of the People Act provides that the sheriff principal is to be the returning officer, and that Act has not been amended. It will, of course, be necessary for him to utilise the services of, for example, his sheriffs in discharging the duties, and this is the present situation. That will continue to be the position with the redistribution of the sheriffdoms.
I was asked whether the new sheriffs will have the opportunity to move on to the Bench, and the answer is in the affirmative. It is still possible for a sheriff principal to be appointed to the Senate of the College of Justice, so there is no problem there.
The new sheriffs principal are being required to reside in their sheriffdoms. I accept the rather loose point put by the hon. Gentleman, particularly with regard to the size and spread of the various sheriffdoms which we intend to bring into operation. It is the intention that a sheriff principal should reside in his sheriffdom. It will be a matter for discussion with the sheriff principal when he comes to be appointed, but that is the intention.
I was asked how many sheriffs will be required with effect from 16th May 1975. The number will be broadly the same as now but will be reviewed in the light of the assessment to be undertaken by the new sheriffs principal themselves.
The question was also raised as to what has to be done to meet the criticisms contained in Mr. Brand's Note of Dissent from the Grant Report. The Scottish Courts Administration has been set up and has done a great deal of preparatory work in connection with the order. The reconstituted Sheriff Court Rules Council, under the chairmanship of Sir Allan Walker, has been in operation for the last three years and has done a great deal of work on behalf of the Government and the Law Officers.
I must disabuse my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire about the term "commissariots". They are the districts in which a commissory—in other words, a sheriff—operates. The function


is largely confined to dealing with such matters as the confirmation of executors in the estates of deceased persons. I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend on this point but that is the description both of "commissariot" and of "commissory".
I can give both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Ayr an assurance that the discussions about Ayr will be meaningful. When the new sheriff principal is appointed, one of his first actions will be to hold the fullest possible consultations within his sheriffdom with all the court users in order to ensure that all the points are made and considered. But in no circumstances will these consultations lead to a change in the boundary of the sheriffdom itself. As long as it is clearly understood that the boundary cannot be changed, the consultations can go ahead on the question of particular districts—for example, whether cases from Irvine are fed into Kilmarnock or into Ayr.
The court at Kilmarnock is being extended to cope with any increased work load that might arise from any upsurge in cases being fed into the court. The Ayr court requires expansion. Even on an adjusted volume of business it is doubtful whether the loss of business amounts to the 40 per cent. mentioned by the hon. Member for Ayr. When the extension of the Kilmarnock court has been completed it will be adequate to cope with the increased business. Kilmarnock solicitors have indicated that it is adequate to undertake the increased work load.
Consultation on sheriff court districts —this is the point that I was making when I was saying that the boundary of the sheriffdom cannot be altered—will be meaningful and will not necessarily have to follow the local authority districts. I think that the hon. Member for Ayr and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire can rest content with the assurance that the consultations will be meaningful and that they need not follow local authority district boundaries.
The hon. Member for Western Isles asked about the requirement, as he put it, of a resident sheriff in Stornoway. The hon. Gentleman has indicated that he is aware that in 1973 certain changes were made that meant that the Stornoway

Sheriff Court was serviced by a sheriff from Inverness. The current interval between a pleading diet and trial is only five weeks, the shortest delay in Scotland. There is no delay in the disposal of civil business. That position is reached on the basis of a sheriff attending the court for three days every fortnight. That is a sufficient indication of the extent to which there would be a surplus of shrieval power should a permanent sheriff be provided for the borough.
I can give the assurance that the sheriff principal of the sheriffdom will no doubt keep this matter under consideration. If for some reason a need should arise at a later date I have no doubt that the sheriff principal will consider making representations. At the moment we are satisfied that the needs of Stornoway—we recognise that it is an important and principal town in the Western Isles—are adequately met by the three days per fortnight to which I have referred.
I now turn to the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire. I know that we have been here since half-past two yesterday afternoon, but I felt when the hon. and learned Gentleman was comparing the Grampian, Highlands and Islands Sheriffdom with Egypt that he was getting his sheriffs mixed up with his Sharifs. I think that the long day has had rather a bad effect on the hon. and learned Gentleman. We are convinced that the reorganisation of the sheriffdoms will lead to a better deal, will provide better facilities and will in every way improve justice at sheriff level in Scotland.

Mr. Fairbaim: The Minister stressed that the real benefit was an administrative one. Is he aware that the Grant Committee did not attach great significance to the administrative duties performed by the sheriffs principal?

Mr. Ewing: I made the point that the main benefit was the administration of justice, and that is the point on which we rest. We are convinced that the organisation of the sheriffdoms and the proposals we are submitting tonight will lead to a vast improvement in the administration of justice in Scotland and to a better deal for all who use the courts—those who work in them and those who, through some misfortune, find themselves there in another capacity.
We are convinced that the proposals in the order will lead to the improvement that I have indicated throughout my speech.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Sheriffdoms Reorganisation Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th November, be approved.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

LUNG DISEASE (BREATHING APPLIANCES)

3.27 a.m.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I deeply regret Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you, the Under-Secretary and I are detained here at this late hour. Perhaps in view of the hours of debate that have gone before it is appropriate that an English Member should be raising the last item of the day's business. I am sure that the matter which I wish to raise deserves consideration since it is relevant to a number of people who suffer severe ill health and disability.
There are grounds for serious doubt about the effectiveness of our present arrangements and the adequacy of our provision of portable breathing appliances for those who need oxygen supplies and who are immobilised and confined by that need. I do not think that we could possibly be satisfied with the arrangements in the National Health Service in view of the number of appliances which have been provided. I suspect that this number is astonishingly small.
However, before I enlarge upon that point I shall explain how I became concerned about the matter. One of my constituents is Mr. Jack Aisbitt of Dinnington. He suffers from severe pneumoconiosis. When I first visited him at his home earlier this year he seemed a sick man, regrettably unable to enjoy a varied life. For months at a time he was unable to leave his home, and his condition was such that he had to be close to the large oxygen cylinders at his home. This confinement was hardly conducive to his physical well being.
Mr. Aisbitt gave many years of valuable service to the mining industry, latterly at Dinnington Colliery, and for that, like so many thousands of other miners, he has paid the bitter price of pneumoconiosis. I am delighted that the Government are to take certain helpful action to ease or offset that burden. However, Mr. Aisbitt also gave excellent service in the Army and he has long been associated with the Royal British Legion. There is a very good branch of the Legion in Dinnington, and some time ago Mr. Aisbitt became the honorary treasurer.
The branch showed the compassion for which it is highly regarded and local members felt an increasing concern for Jack Aisbitt. This spring it was decided to investigate the possibility of acquiring a portable oxygen appliance to assist him. The secretary of the branch, Mr. Ernest Kirk, went into the question with commendable zeal. The British Oxygen Company was contacted at the Rotherham works and the staff were extremely helpful. A visit was paid by British Oxygen representatives to Dinnington where they met local Legion officials and Mr. Aisbitt and discussed the matter. Eventually a Portogen appliance was purchased, and it was hoped that the quality of Mr. Aisbitt's life would be enhanced.
I was kept informed about the case by Mr. Kirk and Councillor Don Keeton, a vice-chairman of the local branch of the British Legion. Like me, they were concerned that the appliance had to be purchased privately, for they realised that while the local branch could act to assist its own member, who suffered the dismal effect of debilitating immobility, other people in similar circumstances could be much less fortunate.
I considered this point, and because I felt that it had relevance I raised the question in correspondence with the Department. During and since the summer of this year I have also tabled a number of Questions. I have been rather disappointed. That disappointment has been increased as the months have passed and I have noted what a pleasing difference the appliance has made to Mr. Aisbitt's life. He was housebound for months before he received the appliance. I learnt that once he had it he was able to get to the branch meetings to which one of his many friends could not take him


by car. He could spend an hour or two out of his home regularly.
In the last long recess, while carrying out a series of meetings and home visits in the Dinnington area, I had a little time free and decided to call on Mr. Aisbitt to have a chat with him. I found no one in. Further on in the High Nook Estate in Dinnington, where Jack Aisbitt lives, I encountered Mr. Kirk and Councillor Keeton, who informed me with a very proper satisfaction that Mr. Aisbitt was away from home. His son is in the Parachute Regiment in Aldershot, and Mr. Aisbitt, an ex-soldier, was visiting him there. I learnt that the Army had laid on an oxygen supply and generally shown an exceedingly kind and helpful attitude so that it was possible for Mr. Aisbitt to be away from home.
I was pleased to hear of this development. It was excellent news, coming, as it did, after all those dreary days and months of immobility. I again reflected that without the help of the Dinnington British Legion Mr. Aisbitt would still have been confined to his home.
I then paid a visit to the British Oxygen Company at Rotherham, where I met Mr. Coulson Smith, who occupies a senior position with that company, and who has kindly given me helpful advice and assistance, for which I am very grateful. The company's main activity is to provide oxygen and other gases for industry and commerce. I do not think that I can be accused of seeking to drum up business for the company, as the provision of portable breathing appliances can be only a tiny part of its activities. But that side of the business should be encouraged and should expand. I am sure that it needs to. Even if it did, it would still be only a tiny part of the company's overall activity.
In May my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for the disabled wrote to me informing me that in the 1968–69 survey of the handicapped and the impaired it was recorded that there were 4,300 people severely handicapped due to chest disease. He suggested that the figure today was probably 4,500. I was also informed that on 31st March this year there were 1,953 people receiving constant attendance allowance because of respiratory conditions. Some of them

could probably benefit from the provision of a portable appliance. At any time there are 14,000 beds occupied by hospital patients suffering from severe chest disease, and perhaps some of them could benefit, too.
I am certain that a number of those who suffer serious chest disease could enjoy the extra mobility that the portable appliance provides. The numbers involved may in total be comparatively small, but I am sure that the existing provision does not match even the smallest estimate of need. I believe that the need in mining areas such as that which I represent, and perhaps that represented by my hon. Friend the Minister, is such as to justify increased provision. I have asked quite a number of Questions about the matter, and I have been disappointed by the replies.
On Tuesday, 18th June, my hon. Friend the Minister informed me that he was satisfied with the procedures. My most recent Question on the subject led to my being informed that the figures for the provision of portable appliances were not available centrally. I strongly suspect that if my hon. Friend had the figures he would be as disappointed with them as anyone could be. Those figures should have been made available to hon. Members.
I have not obtained figures for the whole of Britain, but I have received information for virtually half of England which is relevant. In the east of England hospital authorities appear to have acquired relatively few portable appliances—less than a dozen in total in the two years 1972–74. Only one appliance was purchased in the first few months of the current financial year. The fact that so few machines were obtained is astonishing since I believe that there are quite a few people about like Mr. Aisbitt. The Minister may say that the few appliances obtained would in any case not be going to out-patients but would be retained for hospital purposes, for emergencies, and midwifery cases, and not for people who spend most of their time in their own home.
Of course these appliances may be purchased privately, but the Minister should bear in mind that many of those disabled by chest disease have been among the poorest in the community for


years, perhaps decades, and the £40 or so involved in purchasing the appliance and recharging equipment could not easily be found by them. I hate to think that sheer lack of funds causes anyone to be housebound because this inevitably shortens their lives.
The Minister might feel that the situation cannot be too bad because the appliances can be provided through the hospital service. However, the fact seems to be that the hospital service is not providing the appliances on an adequate scale. Only a very few appliances appear to be on loan from hospitals at present. I know that the Department feels that it would be difficult to arrange for the supply of such equipment under general medical and pharmaceutical services. Clearly the chemists could not always keep the appliances in stock and it might be right therefore for the hospital service to stock them and to distribute them to chemists as necessary.
Whatever the administrative procedure involved, it should not be such as to discourage the necessary provision. That seems to be the case at present. I consider that where a person has oxygen cylinders in his own home and is incapable of moving far from those cylinders, a portable appliance could be made available to give him or her the 20 to 30 minutes supply which should be enough to allow reasonable mobility within that individual's community.
Experience suggests that it should not be necessary for hospital consultants to have the sole right to prescribe these appliances. In many cases the local general practitioner may be far and away the best arbiter. If he can be instrumental in securing the provision of the larger appliance, why not the small one, too? Whatever procedures are adopted, the supply of the appliance could come from the local pharmacist who supplies the large cylinders.
Here it would be right for me to pay tribute to local chemists who so often in this matter act with kindly thought-fulness. I understand that this has certainly been the case with Mr. Aisbitt and with others in South Yorkshire whose chemists ensure that the large cylinders in the homes of the disabled and the immobilised are properly handled. This arrangement usually works well, not least because of the chemists' involvement. I

do not believe that they would find the provision of portable appliances an intolerable task, even though personal profit is quite meagre. I would imagine that a local order placed with a pharmacist could be met within a week or 10 days.
At one point the argument was advanced that care and caution was needed to avoid establishing oxygen addiction. However—and I hope that the Minister will comment upon this—I am told that the Portogen appliance which I have in mind is designed to ensure that a proportion of ordinary air is admitted to the mixture inhaled. I understand that this makes the development of addiction very much less likely.
It is fair to say that in many cases addiction could not develop, at least not for a long time. With the ordinary brightness of life provided by a little more mobility, time may not be a particularly relevant factor. These appliances are light, easily handled and ideal for those in the weak condition brought about by lasting chest disease.
I had felt tempted to try to bring one of these appliances into the Chamber. I have been loaned one for examination and it is in the building. However, knowing of our present concern about illegal criminal action, I felt that discretion was needed; otherwise, if I had produced the appliance in the Chamber, I might have found myself in the Tower rather quickly. However, in view of the lateness of the hour I feel tempted to say that it might have been useful, if not for myself, for either you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State. We have the appliance in the building, and I was able to show it to the Minister who will, I think, agree that it is ideal for its purpose—a useful and appropriate tool for living and to provide the greater capacity to enjoy living.
I hope that the Minister and the Department will be prepared to look again at this whole question. I trust that the Minister will concede that some needy people could be helped, and that too few of those like Mr. Aisbitt are helped in this way at the present time. I repeat and emphasise that the parliamentary Answers I have received have not been at all encouraging or properly informative. Information of the kind sought ought to


be provided, particularly given the months over which my concern has been expressed.
I must also repeat and emphasise that as a result of the provision of an appliance of the kind mentioned, my constituent's life has been greatly improved. There must be scores, even a few hundreds, of others in like physical condition—I do not think there are more than that at any time—who would benefit from a portable appliance and who have not been loaned one. I believe, therefore, that the present arrangements and procedures are excessively cautious and inadequately effective in dealing with need.
I conclude by reminding the House that my constituent's experience justifies the Department's reconsideration. May I add that I believe that Mr. Aisbitt is most appreciative of the appliance and of the help that he has received from the Royal British Legion. Not every person in his position can be said to qualify for its assistance. However, such qualification should not be essential for the sort of extra mobility which Mr. Aisbitt now enjoys and which no one else should be prevented from enjoying.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, I regret the lateness of the hour, but I hope that the Minister will feel that even though it is late, the question before us is a worthy one.

3.43 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alec Jones): May I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) on raising this subject, even at this late hour, and on his eloquence on behalf of those who are so unfortunate as to be housebound because they suffer from respiratory disease. It is, sadly, a subject of great concern in my hon. Friend's constituency, and I assure him that it is a matter of equal concern in my constituency and in many parts of South Wales because in that area there is a high incidence of pneumoconiosis and other respiratory diseases.
My hon. Friend has been concerned about this matter for some months, and I have read the several Questions put to and the Answers given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the availability of portable appliances.

The present policy was made known to my hon. Friend by the Minister of State in a letter of 22nd May 1974, and I am glad of this opportunity to explain this policy in rather more detail. I shall read my hon. Friend's speech and consider carefully the points that he has made tonight. I was grateful to him for showing me the appliance, and in view of the lateness of the hour I feel in need of its services.
I emphasise that the prescription of breathing appliances is a medical matter, the most vital need of the patient being for an appliance that will suit his or her own respiratory condition, but the importance attached to mobility will doubtless be taken into account by the doctor, and I accept the point that mobility is desperately important for the individual. In most cases this means an appliance supplied through the domiciliary oxygen therapy service under which pharmacists purchase standard non-portable oxygen apparatus which is loaned out to patients on the prescription of a general practitioner.
As to portable appliances for patients who need a certain amount of oxygen in order to remain active, these appliances can be, and are, obtained by the hospital concerned whenever a consultant believes that the use of such an appliance would be beneficial to a particular patient. There is no limitation on the type of appliance to be supplied, although, of course, as for all other appliances the cost must be met from within the budget of the area health authority.
I have not hitherto any evidence that the hospital service is failing to supply appliances suitable for patients suffering from respiratory disease, and it is estimated that the present rate of issue runs at about 3,000 sets a year. This figure is somewhat better than the figure my hon. Friend mentioned.
There are several reasons why portable apparatus is supplied by the hospital. First, in order to determine the oxygen requirements of a patient who needs this therapy, a consultant chest physician will carry out a number of clinical tests, including lung function studies, and on the basis of the results of these tests he will advise his patient and prescribe the ventilator appropriate to his patient's needs. Such facilities are not available to a general practitioner, who would be


unable to recommend the type of respirator needed with the same degree of accuracy as a consultant who has the facilities at his disposal.
I should like to refer to the 1969 report of the Scottish Standing Medical Advisory Committee sub-committee on the uses and dangers of oxygen therapy. The report of this expert sub-committee under the chairmanship of Professor Donald contains a good deal of excellent advice on oxygen therapy. As to patient-carried oxygen sets, it referred to advice given by Dr. Coles of the Pneumoconiosis Research Unit of the Medical Research Council and it concluded that the problems of portable oxygen therapy were far from simple, and I think that that understates the problem. It was difficult to select those patients who would be likely to benefit and it was difficult to be sure that the equipment was properly used and maintained. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that whenever the equipment is supplied it is vital that it be properly maintained.
The report also outlined some of the physiological hazards attendant upon prolonged inhalation of oxygen, especially with the risk of dependency, and mentioned the increased risk of fire when pure oxygen was present in the atmosphere. This is certainly a possible danger when we talk of portable cylinders being refilled from a main cylinder.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate how essential it is that those who are prescribed oxygen therapy must be able to understand what is involved and cope with the standards of safety required. The sub-committee went on to recommend, however, that the value of portable oxygen sets should be investigated in a larger number of patients, and I shall be speaking about this in a few moments.
The chief problem with the portable breathing appliances available is the relatively short duration of the oxygen supply, linked to the need to reduce the weight of the apparatus so that it can be carried, which means that either the patient must recharge the portable cylinders from a larger cylinder in his home, increasing the hazards, or replacement cylinders in large quantities must be readily available to him.
There is no doubt that having portable breathing apparatus helps quite a number

of people, but it would be wrong if I did not sound a note of caution in case false hopes are raised. Although wanting to do everything possible to help people in this condition, it would be wrong for us to raise hopes which we could not satisfy. There are some patients suffering from respiratory disease for whom oxygen therapy would not be of benefit, and again this must be a matter for the clinical judgment of a consultant.
Finally—this was mentioned in the letter of 22nd May, to my hon. Friend— there would be difficulties in establishing a satisfactory method of supply of such equipment under the general medical and pharmaceutical services. As so few sets of portable apparatus are required, it is not practical to expect chemists to stock such equipment for the few occasions on which it would be prescribed. In these circumstances, although it would of course be possible to make special individual arrangements, the hospital service is in fact the quickest and most practical source of supply. I would not, however, attempt to press this last argument far; it is our conviction that the expertise of the hospital consultant is desirable for this type of prescription. This is what weighs most with us, combined as it is with our belief that at present in most cases the hospital provides to these people a satisfactory service. I am sure that my hon. Friend does not suggest that the hospital service is not adequate, I am sure that if he had examples of inadequacy he would send me the fullest details for me to investigate. I do not think that that was the point he was making.
I should like to finish by referring briefly to the Medical Research Council multicentre trial of long-term oxygen therapy which includes an investigation into portable breathing appliances. A meeting of experts was organised early in 1972 to consider the feasibility of mounting a multicentre trial of the effects of long-term domiciliary oxygen therapy on pulmonary hypertension in patients with such complaints as chronic bronchitis and emphysema. This meeting recommended that an informal working group should be set up to draw up proposals for such a study, and at the same time suggested that the Medical Research Council, in consultation with the Department of Health, might consider ways of improving equipment for the supply of


domiciliary oxygen, including the supply of portable breathing appliances. The proposals for the study were approved by the council and these trials are now taking place, including the use of a commercially available portable system as well as conventional methods of oxygen supply.
As information from these trials becomes available we shall be reconsidering our policy on the provision of portable apparatus, but for the sake of the people concerned—the sufferers—we should want some degree of certainty that our present method of supply is unsatisfactory before we could contemplate

changing it. It is not that we wish to close our minds to my hon. Friend's suggestion. We are always willing to examine anything which can improve the conditions in which people like Mr. Aisbitt have to live. I welcome the improvement which Mr. Aisbitt has experienced, as a consequence of which he is able to lead a more normal life, and hope that the trials to which I have referred will lead to an improvement in the facilities for many sufferers like Mr. Aisbitt.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Four o'clock a.m.